Calgary Cycling Paths & Infrastructure

[People.talking]

something like Citi Bike in the US

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, Bixi.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, Bixi.

Bixi, Velib, Santander Cycle...

Is the group behind Bixi still facing financial problems?

[artvandelay]

There was a bike share program / rental shop at U of C back around 2008-09, not sure why this is being hailed as something new.

Anyway, these bike share programs seem to hemorrhage money when implemented on a municipal basis. Vancouver is launching one right now - the bikes come with a "sanitized" helmet!

[MalcolmTucker]

This is more of a bike rental than a share. The last one was a no tech solution, just make the bikes ugly to secure them.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Larry Heather is a nut, and I completely get that we need more and better bicycle infrastructure, however ...

I drive along Northland Drive in the NW twice a day every weekday, and over the many months since a bike lane was created there, I've never even once seen a bicycle actually use it. The road congestion has increased noticeably (it is used by many heading to Crowchild towards the university and downtown) though arguably it isn't mass congestion. Parallel to the bike lane is a massive parking lot for the mall there, which sits basically empty. I have to question the decision making. I don't think a network of bike lanes is needed at equal density across the entire city, rather, data needed to be compiled on density of users and perhaps age based density (IE accounting for potential new users) and then lanes created after that. Currently it is hardly servicing anyone. Looking forward to refinement of this agenda.

And the mall should have allowed passage way for the bikes in this case. I get that it is private, but gaining traffic of this sort is a win-win, and could have been great free marketing via the city for them (we all would have thanked the mall for being a good citizen). I suspect, however, the City never thought of approaching the mall and suggesting an arrangement, instead took out a lane right beside a mall lot with oodles of space. Silly.

I had highlighted the failure of the cycle track on Northland Drive many months ago, and was happy that this topic was actually discussed on CBC Radio's The Eyeopener this morning. Apparently, the regular usage of the track is about four per day, but the city is resisting putting a cycle counter on this stretch. Additional observations were that it has caused quite a bit of cost and havoc during the winter. For one thing, buses have been having a hard time navigating during snow, and as a result, there have been numerous sign posts knocked down, with points last year of five knocked down in a row. The on-going additional maintenance and fixing costs, as such, far exceed the $750K used to create the track on this short stretch of road. Furthermore, there is a much higher snow clearing cost for this, as the large machines cannot do the entire width of the road, and so smaller machines needing additional operator time are required for the cycle track portions, which at the end of the day do not get used.

While I think over time cycle tracks need to be pushed more and more, the gap for this stretch of road between usage and costs is just too wide. I think it should be removed. Removing the track will not hamper the two or four bikes that ride there over the day, as they can still ride on the road.

[Fuzz]

I'm not sure where you get the 2-4 bike count, the article says 43 in 6 hours.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/northland-bike-chu-1.3514015

Part of the problem is the area really lacks connectivity. I know you don't want to hear it, but the ultimate solution to increase ridership is more lanes like this, not fewer.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure where you get the 2-4 bike count, the article says 43 in 6 hours.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/northland-bike-chu-1.3514015

Part of the problem is the area really lacks connectivity. I know you don't want to hear it, but the ultimate solution to increase ridership is more lanes like this, not fewer.

I just saw the article - previously I had just listened to the interview. I believe the interview number was based on a full day video recording of the cycle track there during winter, and the issues highlighted were all regarding winter also. In that full-day count, it was two kids in the morning, and the same two in the afternoon, and no one else.

The 43 count mention does not list specifics on when that happened. Most certainly covering a rush hour in the best cycling months, but I'm actually extremely skeptical of that. I drive that road twice a day every day during both rush hours, and I very rarely see any cycles along the entire length of that road. Once per month I might see a single rider. I'm not exaggerating. Makes me wonder if there is some quiet marketing that happened with the city counted, and a bunch of riders then went back and forth. Sounds implausible, but it is a real mystry given my knowledge and regular presence on that stretch. Note that on that road, there is a track on both sides, to the numbers I'm giving you from having driving that road about 500 times in the last 12 months is cumulative of both sides.

I get we need to do more to encourage riding, I'm just questioning that location, because it hasn't helped. The very few people who ride there were already riding. It had instead just added massive capital and then upkeep costs on the backs of all Calgarians. If we were flush with money, perhaps I wouldn't worry about all the sign posts and extra snow removal costs that are perpetual.

[EDIT]

Someone needs to investigate a pinch on how we can have these in summer, and remove them in winter, without having to rip out concrete. I think that would likely be a good compromise on stretches like these, till the point where doing it year round is better justified. The added cost of adding / removing, assuming a good solution for that can be developed, would likely be balanced by savings in fixing signs and in custom snow removal. Just a thought.

[McMurph]

The 4 per day was Sean Chu quoting a local — who had set up surveillance with a video camera. I'd say the number is unreliable. Even if there is a decent argument against that particular cycle track, Chu is completely incapable of making an intelligent comment.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by McMurph

The 4 per day was Sean Chu quoting a local — who had set up surveillance with a video camera. I'd say the number is unreliable. Even if there is a decent argument against that particular cycle track, Chu is completely incapable of making an intelligent comment.

If Chu saw 4,000 cyclists he would still think it's a waste of money.

Someone with that much open prejudice towards an idea isn't a good fit for public office in a role that is more about compromise and collaboration. In this particular case, he claims to want real data to back up his position but the city is hiding it on purpose. He previous made the claim that the city bike data was all — anyway, so they should be ignored.

The guy hates cyclists, which is his choice. He may even have valid opinions occasionally, but no one can listen to him because of his blatant bias. I just wished he stuck to his own ward with his attitude rather than go and unconstructively criticize projects elsewhere.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by McMurph

The 4 per day was Sean Chu quoting a local — who had set up surveillance with a video camera. I'd say the number is unreliable. Even if there is a decent argument against that particular cycle track, Chu is completely incapable of making an intelligent comment.

Like I said in my post, I drive on that stretch two rush hours per day. Probably 500 trips in the last year. I rarely see any cyclists. I'm not a fan of Sean Chu in general, but I have to tell ya', the number he quoted is basically what I've seen from actually being on that stretch. Unless you've visited that stretch a few dozen times, I'd suggest to not make derogatory remarks about people who have actually observed and been there. You guys are like extremists who deny reality. Time to be a bit more fair.

[MalcolmTucker]

Why is this an issue at all? It isn't like there is problems with road capacity on that stretch. Even with the bike lanes and bus lay-bys the road is still 4 lanes with dedicated turning lanes.

It is like the mere presence of the lanes is a moral affront or something. If the road width was reclaimed to grass at great expense, then bike trails built, I'm sure they wouldn't be attacked in the same way besides being way more expensive.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Why is this an issue at all? It isn't like there is problems with road capacity on that stretch. Even with the bike lanes and bus lay-bys the road is still 4 lanes with dedicated turning lanes.

It is like the mere presence of the lanes is a moral affront or something. If the road width was reclaimed to grass at great expense, then bike trails built, I'm sure they wouldn't be attacked in the same way besides being way more expensive.

Wow - go back and read my first post regarding today's CBC coverage. Its very annoying to have to keep repeating why it is bad and why it is costing the city (meaning you and I) way more than it is worth.

[rotten42]

I drive the Northland stretch most mornings and confirm that "nobody" uses it. It is also a big cluster-f%ck in the way it was designed....not to mention that it doesn't really lead anywhere and when I bike on the weekends I take a different route to avoid it.

I am totally on board with some of the cycling infrastructure but this section is a joke.

[MalcolmTucker]

The massive snow clearing cost of this:


Which if it cost twice as much as clearing the cycle track downtown per metre would be a massive $32,500 a year. This replaces two lanes of traffic which in 2014 would cost $9400 (2 km of lane kilometre priority 1 route).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by suburbia

snip-
Makes me wonder if there is some quiet marketing that happened with the city counted, and a bunch of riders then went back and forth. Sounds implausible, but it is a real mystry given my knowledge and regular presence on that stretch. Note that on that road, there is a track on both sides, to the numbers I'm giving you from having driving that road about 500 times in the last 12 months is cumulative of both sides.
-snip

Ah, the old Chu conspiracy of cyclists spending hours with nothing better to do than circle the block. Good one. The count takes place yearly, as mentioned in the article, I believe in May. No one is cooking the numbers.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Like I said in my post, I drive on that stretch two rush hours per day. Probably 500 trips in the last year. I rarely see any cyclists. I'm not a fan of Sean Chu in general, but I have to tell ya', the number he quoted is basically what I've seen from actually being on that stretch. Unless you've visited that stretch a few dozen times, I'd suggest to not make derogatory remarks about people who have actually observed and been there. You guys are like extremists who deny reality. Time to be a bit more fair.

The point is that "I only saw a few people using it" fails as an argument and completely misunderstands the point of this infrastructure in the first place. It's partly cycle advocates' fault for battling total ignorance with teleological dependence on data. This isn't a uncomplicated question that data alone can answer; it's a moral one. There's no integrity on either side when it becomes so reduced.

Saying "I only saw a few people using it" is like saying "I only saw a few people using the handicap ramp" or "Only a few kids use that playground" or "they only use that office during the day" or "Wind farms provide less electricity than coal and NG, so we shouldn't build them".

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Which if it cost twice as much as clearing the cycle track downtown per metre would be a massive $32,500 a year. This replaces two lanes of traffic which in 2014 would cost $9400 (2 km of lane kilometre priority 1 route).

The analysis needs more thought. With only car lanes, the big trucks simply push all the way to the edge. With the current setup, the snow actually needs to be pushed up and completely out of the way (IE it increases costs for clearing the lanes) and then in addition, small machines need to come in and clear the cycle track, as the large machines can't get in there. Finally, half of all the sign poles along that entire stretch get destroyed and the snow is blocking all sorts of things and the buses can't easily get in and out. All this while there are no cycles using the ridiculous tracks, as confirmed my me as well as rotten42, who actually rides a bicycle in this area but confirms that bicycles avoid it. And all this maintenance and repair costs (for no use) in addition to $750,000 for installation in the first place. If you guys say this is worth it even when cyclists confirm it is a joke, I'm sure happy none of you are my accountants.

Originally Posted by rotten42

I drive the Northland stretch most mornings and confirm that "nobody" uses it. It is also a big cluster-f%ck in the way it was designed....not to mention that it doesn't really lead anywhere and when I bike on the weekends I take a different route to avoid it.

I am totally on board with some of the cycling infrastructure but this section is a joke.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

The point is that "I only saw a few people using it" fails as an argument and completely misunderstands the point of this infrastructure in the first place. It's partly cycle advocates' fault for battling total ignorance with teleological dependence on data. This isn't a uncomplicated question that data alone can answer; it's a moral one. There's no integrity on either side when it becomes so reduced.

Saying "I only saw a few people using it" is like saying "I only saw a few people using the handicap ramp" or "Only a few kids use that playground" or "they only use that office during the day" or "Wind farms provide less electricity than coal and NG, so we shouldn't build them".

For the record, I see a LOT of people legitimately using the handicap parking.

I think the full day video recording of the route is hard evidence. I think the hard evidence of all the damage to the sign posts is undeniable. I think rotten42's personal experience as a cyclist is hard evidence. When I've gone through their 500 times in the last year, twice a day during both rush hours, that cumulatively becomes hard evidence. As I pointed out earlier, I reported how this stretch stinks a very long time ago, and not just because it was on the radio this morning. I think at the same time, it is real rich for a bunch of snot noses who are not even around that area to slam people who are and observe this stuff first hand.

[Fuzz]

Just for the record, Rotten42's comment and your observations are not hard evidence, they are anecdotal. The City's count is hard evidence. Unless your tinfoil hat is on to tight.

Further, calling us a bunch of snot noses in a discussion hardly backs up your previous assertion that you are some sort of benefit to the forum.

I could also point to hundreds of occurrences where dangerous drivers would necessitate a need for a safe separate facilities for cyclists. It's a cost/benefit scenario. You may see it as a giant cost, while others see it as having a safe way to move through their city without homicidal drivers running them down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQM8WcSAtk&feature=youtu.be

Here is one of your 2 riders a day on the bike track in question, having to deal with stuff us cyclists deal with all the time. He's got plenty of other videos, take a watch. Maybe you will change your mind about the need for safe infrastructure.