Are suburban cyclists being forgotten in Calgary’s bike plans?

[speedog]

Are suburban cyclists being forgotten in Calgary’s bike plans?

See the Calgary Herald's story at this link.

Now what I believe is being conveniently left out here is the fact that people buy homes in communities like Tuscany for a reason and now some of them complain that their chosen community isn't offering something they want. Interestingly enough, some parts of Tuscany are approaching 20 years in age - this is not a community that has appeared in the last 5 years, know this for a fact because my sister-in-law and her husband have owned a home there since 1995.

So, complaining about the city isn't providing the right kind of cycling infrastructure to Tuscany is like complaining about the big ass things that regularly fly over someone's home in Mayland Heights - the problem was there before you bought your home. If you intended to be an avid bicycle commuter, then why would you purchase a home in a poorly serviced community like Tuscany and then proceed to bitch about it - possibly you, as an avid bicycle commuter, should have factored this in a bit more in your decision as to where to buy a home.

People buy homes in limited access communities like Tuscany for a reason, what reasons I am unsure about as it's not my cup of tea as we own mid-50's bungalow in a north central community. We have great access to cycle routes and I used to regularly commute to/from work for over 15 years before we bought our business. At the same time, I fully recognize that residing within an almost inner-city community comes with it drawbacks and I fully accept our decision to live with such drawbacks - the positives outweighed the negatives in our opinion.

Never the less, the individual complaining about Tuscany's poor ingress/egress with respect to cycling infrastructure really needs to look at why they settled there in the first place - did they really settle there because of the great cycling (in/out of the community) infrastructure or was there really another reason they settled there? It's kind of like purchasing a home in a community like Sage Valley and then stirring up the shit in the media because your kids have to ride a bus to school or you have too many planes flying over head - please, just please accept some responsibility for your part in your decision to settle where you did.

Please note that at the same time I am not saying that the city can't do better, but people like Darren Bender from the Herald article don't seem to be mindful of the fact that they settled into a community with certain drawbacks/deficiencies that were already there and which were probably more than evident when they were looking to purchase a home in that community.

[Calgarian]

I think the city should focus on the inner city first, then look at the suburbs once they can actually connect to the core. How much of the suburbs are connected to the pathway system? that should suffice until the inner city is taken care of.

Also, I have a friend who lives in Tuscany that rides his bike downtown during the summer, says it takes between 45 minutes and an hour.

[Full Mountain]

The thing that frustrated me with that article was that there were no solutions proposed, I'm good with his premise that Tuscany needs better active mode connections, but at no point in his letter does he mention what he thinks should be done, other than that it should be better. Even vague generalities of we need another connection to/at x point or we need some painted bike lanes or really anything would have been better.

I think that many people have made a decision to live in a community that limits their transportation choices and feel they have the right to use whatever platform is available to them to in this case Bike Calgary. I think as a director of Bike Calgary he should be proposing solutions rather than inciting division.

[speedog]

Of note, for Tuscany commuters that commute to downtown via either a car or a bicycle, there are three exits in that direction (2 east side and 1 south side) for cyclists and only two (one south side, 1 east side) for cars. One has to wonder how many more exits are required for cycle commuters when they already have more egress points towards downtown than people driving cars do.

[sync]

i spent some time living west springs and found it to be quite well connected. all down hill to edworthy.

going back was another story though.

[RyLucky]

Most of Calgary's suburbs have great trails. The single greatest need is a N-S bike path straight through Downtown and the Beltline.

[kw5150]

Not sure if this is a serious news story. The only problem I have had biking in the burbs (yes I do like to explore them too on a bike) is that there are SO many dead ends and unnecessary detours to get a short distance in some areas. If you live in that community though, you will probably have no problem finding your way. Other than that, the roads are not busy, there are connections to be found to the regional pathway system and I think the trails are even cleared of snow. The city can only go so far in demanding bike paths, it is up to the client and homeowners to ask for more.

The next news story will be "CITY FORCES NEW COMMUNITIES TO HAVE BETTER PATHWAY SYSTEM WITH TAX DOLLARS" in big bold letter on the cover of the Sun.

[Chealion]

Originally Posted by speedog

So, complaining about the city isn't providing the right kind of cycling infrastructure to Tuscany is like complaining about the big ass things that regularly fly over someone's home in Mayland Heights - the problem was there before you bought your home. If you intended to be an avid bicycle commuter, then why would you purchase a home in a poorly serviced community like Tuscany and then proceed to bitch about it - possibly you, as an avid bicycle commuter, should have factored this in a bit more in your decision as to where to buy a home.

My take away couldn't be further away from yours; I saw little about commuting and more about providing cycling infrastructure to make cycling within your own community more appealing and safe. The fact is most of the "big" cycling initiatives (eg. 7th St. cycle track) are about the inner city and have a large commuting use and <incorrect>less about making cycling a viable option for everyone.</incorrect>

[ByeByeBaby]

More cycling in the suburbs would be great, and should be encouraged. The big challenge out there is particularly in intercommunity connections. But I have no sympathy for people who choose to move someplace and are then shocked, shocked, to find that the amenities they want that weren't there when they moved in haven't magically sprung up from the earth overnight. The entitlement can reach toxic levels.

The inner city has a much stronger need for cycle facilities than suburbs do at this point. As the article admits, there more destinations in the inner city, making more demand for cycling. Inner city facilities are also part of suburban residents' longer commutes, whether to downtown or across the city. And there is a massive lack of them, or at least a massive lack in places that are more than fifty feet from a river.

Imagine someone writing an editorial complaining about the lack of cycle infrastructure in their community, especially with a focus on local travel. Which neighbourhood do you think they would come from, the one on the left or the one on the right?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Chealion

My take away couldn't be further away from yours; I saw little about commuting and more about providing cycling infrastructure to make cycling within your own community more appealing and safe. The fact is most of the "big" cycling initiatives (eg. 7th St. cycle track) are about the inner city and have a large commuting use and less about making cycling a viable option for everyone.

While commuting cyclists obviously benefit the whole idea of cycle-tracks is to make it more accessible to everyone. By separating cyclists and cars and providing a barrier, cyclists can be more confident that they are safe, while cars can better predict cyclist movements and drive safer as well (more will be found in the lanes than where they are now).

Cycle-tracks are exactly a solution to make cycling more viable to larger groups of people by providing a safe place for all users and skill levels i.e. not the early-20s suicidal bike messengers. The older, less experienced or female groups that are under-represented cyclists now. The goal is to attract people that can't cycle downtown now because they felt unsafe.

[kw5150]

7th street is a point of convergence. It is desperately needed. It is not exclusively for the inner city.

People in cars can be quite scary downtown when there is no lane separation.

[Chealion]

Sorry, was off base with the 7th St. cycle track. I didn't explain my point of it's location (inner city) and that much of the discussion I've seen about it has been from commuters who would use it, making me infer the initial use and support for it would largely be commuter heavy.

Better cycling infrastructure for day to day use is sorely needed throughout the city.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Chealion

Sorry, was off base with the 7th St. cycle track. I didn't explain my point of it's location (inner city) and that much of the discussion I've seen about it has been from commuters who would use it, making me infer the initial use and support for it would largely be commuter heavy.

Better cycling infrastructure for day to day use is sorely needed throughout the city.

Agreed. I think a key element to create better infrastructure is improve back-road routes with more serious infrastructure: no more sharrows and stencils , but lines, buffers and traffic calming to slow cars. So many routes in the inner city would be really nice if the cars were slower, and cyclists had an official place.

The best part is that it doesn't require any expensive paving; just give more room on under-utilized roads over to other modes. Any back-woods roads that are not commuter roads should be completely eligible for this. The southern 5th street bikeway route that goes all the way down to fish creek (or somewhere very far south) is a prime example. Add a few upgrades like bike-activated lights to cross busy roads and designated lanes in tighter streets and you have an ultimate all-user-groups-welcome piece of cycling infrastructure.

The other element that is easy to change is light-timing. WAY too many lights ignore pedestrians and cyclists for the sake of cars (**cough 10th ave **cough). A few fixes on light timing to give more favourable to pedestrians and cyclist would go a long way in all areas of the city to make them more accessible to cyclists.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Chealion

My take away couldn't be further away from yours; I saw little about commuting and more about providing cycling infrastructure to make cycling within your own community more appealing and safe. The fact is most of the "big" cycling initiatives (eg. 7th St. cycle track) are about the inner city and have a large commuting use and <incorrect>less about making cycling a viable option for everyone.</incorrect>

After re-reading the article I can see your points but Darren Bender seems to conveniently not acknowledge that there are two other cycling routes out of Tuscany that cyclists can use - they even show up on the city of Calgary's bicycle map.

[floobie]

Tuscany looks pretty well served for bike paths already. Speaking for Edgemont, half the cyclists don't even use our gigantic bike paths and just ride on the road . I agree that cycling infrastructure should more emphasized in the inner city, where people beyond elite road bikers who commute 50km by bike every day regardless of the weather will actually use it.

[RyLucky]

I don't know how old Bender's letter is, but there's a new road by the West Calgary Soccer Centre that connects Tuscany to the Bow River. From there to Downtown is some of the most beautiful bike pathway in Calgary, if not Canada. Bowness, which is along the way, is famous for its bike culture, and there is decent access to the UofC and other employers by bike. I'm not really sure what he is complaining about. It seems like his main gripe has more to do with sprawling suburban residential neighbourhood design (poor connectivity, little or no local employment, etc) than bike systems. While I agree with the general idea that suburbs ought to be including in network plans, I'd argue that they were never really forgotten (especially in Calgary) so he doesn't need to be defensive. Perhaps his words could be better spent advocating for more bike lockers and employees programs like incentives and showers. I'd say that he is part of the problem as a consumer in a remote and inorganic neighbourhood, but I assume he bikes everywhere, so good for him!

[Radley77]

Just thought I would add that at current rate of maybe a half dozen cycling projects per year, that it would be ~ 40+ years before every community has a solid standard for cycling infrastructure. There just simply is nowhere near the human resources at the City of Calgary or capital to do anything more.

So Calgary is already "ignoring" the suburbs.

Personally, I think this is unfortunate that there is not enough funding such that every community in Calgary can be cycling friendly. I'd like to see a minimum standard of bike routes connecting to transit hubs\major activity centres and schools at a minimum in every community.

[DizzyEdge]

As the number of communities gets greater and greater, would it be useful to give the community association some powers to plan for and spend monies allotted to their community? offloading some of that responsibility off of administration?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

As the number of communities gets greater and greater, would it be useful to give the community association some powers to plan for and spend monies allotted to their community? offloading some of that responsibility off of administration?

No.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

As the number of communities gets greater and greater, would it be useful to give the community association some powers to plan for and spend monies allotted to their community? offloading some of that responsibility off of administration?

More specifically, planning transportation and other urban infrastructure requires skill and experience; as the number of people needing health care goes up, you can't just hand out "E-Z surgery" guides, you need to actually hire more doctors. Community associations are focussed on their very narrow local goals, which is what they're there for, but doesn't make sense in terms of broader planning.

Let's use Tuscany as an example, since that's where we started. There is already a small shopping centre in the middle of the community well connected by bike paths. The next nearby major shopping area is Crowfoot. But Crowfoot is in Arbour Lake, and presumably Arbour Lake wants to spend it's community-bike-access-to-node money on things that will help Arbour Lake residents, like building a trail connecting Arbour Lake Way to John Laurie via Crowfoot Park (NW of Crowfoot), or adding a pathway to Arbour Lake Dr. Those would help Arbour Lake residents north of Crowfoot, but it won't help Tuscany residents. What will most help Tuscany residents bike to Crowfoot would be to build a path through the utility corridor running due E-W from the ped bridge over Stoney Trail, connecting around to the bus-only bridge at the Crowfoot LRT. But that is in Scenic Acres, and I'm not sure Scenic Acres would necessarily be happy about that.

Or what if Westgate and Rosscarrock both want improved east-west access to Westbrook, but Rosscarrock wants to improve 13th Ave and Westgate wants to improve 8th Ave?

And that's not mentioning that Tuscany's share of the city bike budget is around... what is it exactly? Should it be prorated by population? By the area to cover with pathways? What about communities with through trips; an improvement in Hillhurst will be used by the residents of Capitol Hill more than an improvement in Capitol Hill will be used by the citizens of Hillhurst. What about the amount of pathways already present? Tuscany has 12.5 km of pathway (in fact, as it happens, it has 1.8% of the city's population, and 1.8% of the pathway length), and Bowness which is a similar size and 2/3 the population has basically nothing. Should they get the same amount still? When Bowness gets a check the first year with enough money to build 500 feet of pathway, what are they supposed to do with that?

It's almost like there needs to be an agency of some sort, with a mandate to take a broad look at this stuff. I think there might be some room for the initial idea phase of bike projects to be crowdsourced a little, but you will quickly wind up with the crazies, NIMBYs and YIMBYs running the show.