Calgary Cycling Paths & Infrastructure

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by mrcccondor

If you want it it to be efficient and safe for cyclist, they should never share the same lane as a car - different acceleration, turning and ride comfort requirements. I understand this is a necessary compromise in some situations, but I wouldn't call it adequate if you consider cycling as a primary mode of transportation (like the City should according the to MDP)

In grid pattern communities, residential streets unless near a school are 30 kmphr, and otherwise usually have a speed limit of 50 kmphr. In these kinds of low volume, low speed environments one can build roundabouts and have sharrows. Roundabouts have a traffic optimizing effecting, reducing the amount of time stopped, less acceleration and deceleration and increasing overall traffic speeds.

As you progress to higher volume and higher speed streets is when you need to progress to painted bike lanes, and sometimes the only feasible option cases do you require actualy physical separation.

Calgary does not have the money or constrained by other road users in many situations that prevent cyclists from having their own lane in all cases.

The type and quality of cycling infrastructure is context specific.

I also think the City of Calgary should place more focus on the basic secondary or family friendly leisurely routes. Extreme risktaking cyclists will take more aggressive routes regardless, and once an uptick in cycling activity is observed and amateur cyclists have the skill sets and a large enough user group to tackle the more direct (and riskier) routes with combined bike lanes.

[sim]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I was just discussing this sort of thing with a friend last night. I do think that bike lanes and high traffic requires a whole lot of compromises, so that lanes should be focused on light traffic roads so less compromises are needed.

Obviously what you've stated would need more context and clarification, but I would argue that that is the wrong approach:

High-trafficed roads (or heavily used roads) are high-trafficed usually for a reason - that being their directness and their often concimitant or resultant intuitiveness. Now if this is the case for vehicle driving agents, who don't have to expend direct energy in their mobility, it is even more so the case for cyclists and especially pedestrians (coming back to the debate about the supposed redundancy of the Peace Bridge.) Thus, I think that if a cycling strategy with the goal of increasing cycling modal share is to be implemented, it should focus exactly on those routes where it might lead to more compromises (ideally at the expense of the car driver if it has to be.)

That is not to say that Deerfoot or Crowchild for example are ideal candidates, but perhaps something like MacLeod, 14th, 37th, downtown 6th, 9th, 4th, or 5th aves. These are areas where tangible infrastructure would be necessary. I'm not saying that lightly used streets are not to be focused on at all, but these are the streets where a cyclist stensil (what seems to be Calgary's ultra effective current go-to cyclist route/lane identifier), a white delineator or a painted blue lane might suffice.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by sim

Obviously what you've stated would need more context and clarification, but I would argue that that is the wrong approach:

High-trafficed roads (or heavily used roads) are high-trafficed usually for a reason - that being their directness and their often concimitant or resultant intuitiveness. Now if this is the case for vehicle driving agents, who don't have to expend direct energy in their mobility, it is even more so the case for cyclists and especially pedestrians (coming back to the debate about the supposed redundancy of the Peace Bridge.) Thus, I think that if a cycling strategy with the goal of increasing cycling modal share is to be implemented, it should focus exactly on those routes where it might lead to more compromises (ideally at the expense of the car driver if it has to be.)

That is not to say that Deerfoot or Crowchild for example are ideal candidates, but perhaps something like MacLeod, 14th, 37th, downtown 6th, 9th, 4th, or 5th aves. These are areas where tangible infrastructure would be necessary. I'm not saying that lightly used streets are not to be focused on at all, but these are the streets where a cyclist stensil (what seems to be Calgary's ultra effective current go-to cyclist route/lane identifier), a white delineator or a painted blue lane might suffice.

My thought is it is very difficult to combine high vehicular and cyclist traffic on the same road safely, and even more so if there is onstreet parking in the mix of all that, so taking an alternate route (perhaps parallel) to the route used heavily by cars and making that a route where cyclists get the priority over both parking and vehicular traffic might be a better option. To be honest I have yet to see any car/bike/onstreet parking plans which don't disadvantage one of those users.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by sim

Obviously what you've stated would need more context and clarification, but I would argue that that is the wrong approach:

High-trafficed roads (or heavily used roads) are high-trafficed usually for a reason - that being their directness and their often concimitant or resultant intuitiveness. Now if this is the case for vehicle driving agents, who don't have to expend direct energy in their mobility, it is even more so the case for cyclists and especially pedestrians (coming back to the debate about the supposed redundancy of the Peace Bridge.) Thus, I think that if a cycling strategy with the goal of increasing cycling modal share is to be implemented, it should focus exactly on those routes where it might lead to more compromises (ideally at the expense of the car driver if it has to be.)

That is not to say that Deerfoot or Crowchild for example are ideal candidates, but perhaps something like MacLeod, 14th, 37th, downtown 6th, 9th, 4th, or 5th aves. These are areas where tangible infrastructure would be necessary. I'm not saying that lightly used streets are not to be focused on at all, but these are the streets where a cyclist stensil (what seems to be Calgary's ultra effective current go-to cyclist route/lane identifier), a white delineator or a painted blue lane might suffice.

I agree that sometimes direct routes are more intuitive. When travelling from one residential street to say a major activity centre you pass through local road, to a neighbourhood boulevard, to an arterial, and then a freeway and then reverse. It is easier system to navigate because the system has less "steps".

On bike routes the route can be much more complex when travelling long distances as they are less direct and use more side streets.

Cities like Portland handle this issue by having solid wayfinding. There is signage posted that says how long and how far to a major activity centre.

I think that City of Calgary should design a wayfinding strategy for cyclists so that onstreet routes are intuitive. A wayfinding strategy would help shift some high speed, high volume traffic onto lower speed, lower volume streets and make more efficient use of the overall transportation system.

Better wayfinding should be present on streets like 2nd St NW and 26 Ave SW that end up tying into major activity centres. The following is an example of how wayfinding could be improved.

I don't better wayfinding is something that would cost that much. But is something that is needed for a functioning network because directions are less intuitive that auto routes.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

My thought is it is very difficult to combine high vehicular and cyclist traffic on the same road safely, and even more so if there is onstreet parking in the mix of all that, so taking an alternate route (perhaps parallel) to the route used heavily by cars and making that a route where cyclists get the priority over both parking and vehicular traffic might be a better option. To be honest I have yet to see any car/bike/onstreet parking plans which don't disadvantage one of those users.

I agree. I think safety is more than actual safety as well as perceived safety. If you wouldn't take a 10 year old kid on the route, chances are it will never be a widely used route IMO even if there are physical barriers. These routes that are amenable to large userbase are vital to the cycling network.

Also, because the fact that cars and cyclists have different acceleration and speed profiles means that it's nearly impossible to do any light timing optimization or "light waves".

IMO, streets can't be all things to all people. Better to work on understanding issues like having the best intercyclingboulevard spacing. I don't think there are a lot of people in Calgary that would disagree with a rough target of 1 in 10 streets as cycling friendly... Radical auto users probably would like to see no streets cycling friendly and the bike activists would probably like to see every street cycling friendly. I don't think either extreme is in the best interests of Calgarians.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Also, because the fact that cars and cyclists have different acceleration and speed profiles means that it's nearly impossible to do any light timing optimization or "light waves".

Not only that, but unless the intersections are all exactly spaced at the same distance, the road profiles the same and left turn demands (thereby, left turn signalization) can a green wave not even be optimally implemented for traffic in both directions.

I believe it has been posted here before (even by you perhaps,?) but Copenhagen for example does indeed implement green waves based on the average convoy speed of cyclists, hence, making it essentially an anti-green wave for vehicles. Yeah, we've got a way to go...

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by sim

Not only that, but unless the intersections are all exactly spaced at the same distance, the road profiles the same and left turn demands (thereby, left turn signalization) can a green wave not even be optimally implemented for traffic in both directions.

I believe it has been posted here before (even by you perhaps,?) but Copenhagen for example does indeed implement green waves based on the average convoy speed of cyclists, hence, making it essentially an anti-green wave for vehicles. Yeah, we've got a way to go...

See i'd rather have the cycling traffic on another street so that both cars and cyclists can have effective green waves on their own routes.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by sim

Not only that, but unless the intersections are all exactly spaced at the same distance, the road profiles the same and left turn demands (thereby, left turn signalization) can a green wave not even be optimally implemented for traffic in both directions.

I believe it has been posted here before (even by you perhaps,?) but Copenhagen for example does indeed implement green waves based on the average convoy speed of cyclists, hence, making it essentially an anti-green wave for vehicles. Yeah, we've got a way to go...

I think part of Portland's success is due to"green wave" one way bicycle pairings.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=portland&ie=UTF-8

One of the key components to bicycles working efficiently as a means of transportation is reducing the amount of energy to move a given distance. All that work = force * mass * acceleration physics stuff. Reduce the amount of acceleration and deceleration required and you improve the efficiency of bikes. Think roundabouts instead of four way stops, and one way green wave loops instead of putting all types of vehichles on the same road.

[DizzyEdge]

Your link is just a map of Portland, was there a more specific portion you were trying to point out?

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Your link is just a map of Portland, was there a more specific portion you were trying to point out?

Sorry about that, try this one instead:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=portla...&z=16&lci=bike

In this area, near the business district, it has many of the features that were just discussed (locating cycling lanes near but not on arterials, using one way streets as green waves, and it also has continuity to the Williamette pathway river.

I figure since the food trucks have done so well in Calgary, Calgary could also learn a thing or two from Portland's bike infrastructure.

[Calgarian]

The Herald is asking today if it's time to declare the 10th Avenue bike lanes a failure. http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...nes-a-failure/

I have noticed motorists in the bike lanes many times, whether parking, turning or passing. I have also noticed cops along 10th giving out tickets pretty much daily. Is it just me or do a lot of motorists in Calgary put themselves above everyone else, even if it is dangerous to the health of others? I see it at most red lights where some asshole is blocking the cross walk and a driving lane because he wanted to save 2 minutes, or I've seen it where a motorist blocks the sidewalk completely while trying to pull out of a parkade or parking lot, completely ignorant to the fact that they are in the way of a lot of people. Thoughts?

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The Herald is asking today if it's time to declare the 10th Avenue bike lanes a failure. http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...nes-a-failure/

I have noticed motorists in the bike lanes many times, whether parking, turning or passing. I have also noticed cops along 10th giving out tickets pretty much daily. Is it just me or do a lot of motorists in Calgary put themselves above everyone else, even if it is dangerous to the health of others? I see it at most red lights where some asshole is blocking the cross walk and a driving lane because he wanted to save 2 minutes, or I've seen it where a motorist blocks the sidewalk completely while trying to pull out of a parkade or parking lot, completely ignorant to the fact that they are in the way of a lot of people. Thoughts?

i see cars abuse those bike lanes a lot, and yes, a lot of drivers are very selfish and don't think of others, especially bikes.

if they really want the 10 avenue bike lanes to work, they must be physically separated from the car traffic with some sort of curb.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

i see cars abuse those bike lanes a lot, and yes, a lot of drivers are very selfish and don't think of others, especially bikes.

if they really want the 10 avenue bike lanes to work, they must be physically separated from the car traffic with some sort of curb.

Definitely have to be physically separated to really work, but since there are cars parked there 90% of the time, I doubt that will happen. Maybe installing cameras to monitor the lanes could work? would be pricey, but I imagine having 10 cops stationed along 10th isn't cheap either...

[Elbownian]

Uh oh, rant time!

As a full-time pedestrian, I see these things constantly. It's the result of building on a "cars first" principle for over sixty years - it's created a mentality that drivers should be at the top of the transportation food chain at all times.

This isn't to say that cyclists and pedestrians are free from blame though. I've witnessed cyclists riding the wrong way down one way streets, weaving around pedestrians on sidewalks at high speed, you name it. And pedestrians... what is with the number of people who want to saunter across roads diagonally at a snail's pace? Walking in a traffic lane only a few metres from a legal crossing is nothing short of idiotic - there's no reason any driver should expect to encounter a pedestrian there, and a vehicle making a turn into said lane isn't going to have much time to stop. These sorts of actions aren't going to do anything to help matters.

So, long story short: yes, there's a lot of arrogant self-entitled drivers out there, and we've encouraged that to an extent. But it's really only one aspect of a general social malaise wherein a great many people seem to feel they're somehow more important than everybody else. To toss in a Fight Club quote, "You are NOT a unique and beautiful snowflake!".

/rant

But specifically on the topic of bike lanes, I think some form of grade separation or barrier is going to be necessary to create effective bike corridors in high-traffic areas. So long as it's just markings painted in a lane, we'll continue to see misuse. Vancouver really got their lanes right, and I'd look to them as a model. Some good pictures here, plus similar lanes in Montreal and NYC: http://www.theurbancountry.com/2010/...by-street.html

[Calgarian]

Yeah Vancouver definitely got it right. Trying to build dedicated bike lanes here would result in a bigger flame war than the Peace Bridge though, too many here think the car does and should rule absolutely as you said.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The Herald is asking today if it's time to declare the 10th Avenue bike lanes a failure. http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...nes-a-failure/

I have noticed motorists in the bike lanes many times, whether parking, turning or passing. I have also noticed cops along 10th giving out tickets pretty much daily. Is it just me or do a lot of motorists in Calgary put themselves above everyone else, even if it is dangerous to the health of others? I see it at most red lights where some asshole is blocking the cross walk and a driving lane because he wanted to save 2 minutes, or I've seen it where a motorist blocks the sidewalk completely while trying to pull out of a parkade or parking lot, completely ignorant to the fact that they are in the way of a lot of people. Thoughts?

If there are no cyclists in the bike lanes, then I see no problem in utilizing them to make a right turn. Why wait in a stack of traffic going straight when there is a perfectly good lane open to use as a turning lane.

[Calgarian]

The ends of the bike lanes at each intersection are allowed to be used as turn lanes, it's people driving half a block to turn right that's the problem.

[fusili]

10th avenue bike lanes have failed IMO. I walk by them every day and every day there is somebody driving or parking in them. If they want to drive, they can use 11th or 12th. Separate the damn thing. Grow some balls.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The Herald is asking today if it's time to declare the 10th Avenue bike lanes a failure. http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/...nes-a-failure/

I have noticed motorists in the bike lanes many times, whether parking, turning or passing. I have also noticed cops along 10th giving out tickets pretty much daily. Is it just me or do a lot of motorists in Calgary put themselves above everyone else, even if it is dangerous to the health of others? I see it at most red lights where some asshole is blocking the cross walk and a driving lane because he wanted to save 2 minutes, or I've seen it where a motorist blocks the sidewalk completely while trying to pull out of a parkade or parking lot, completely ignorant to the fact that they are in the way of a lot of people. Thoughts?

My workplace is along 10th Ave and bike to work rain or shine. I've stopped using the 10th Ave route mostly because I felt it was too unsafe. I felt it was unacceptable to bike in a zone that is at risk of being doored. I am now instead biking on a nondesignated north/south route where I think I can manouver in a safe manner and can opt between taking the full lane when needed or sharing in other spots when it is safe to do so. As it stands now, the 10th Ave is serving only strong and fearless cyclists, and some confident cyclists. These groups are about 22% of cyclists, whereas there is another 51% who fall into the interested cyclist category that I don't think are likely to use 10th Ave in it's current configuration.

I generally find that Calgarians are pretty reasonable motorists and cyclists. There is some room for better education IMO.

I think these "floating lanes" in the door zone are not meeting the concerns of interested cyclists (~51% of potential cycling userbase). The situation is confounded that there are no north/south or west/east routes in the CBD that is a good fit for interested but concerned cyclists...

6th and 7th St SW bike routes should be available for public review shortly, and while glad to see higher levels of public consultation I'm concerned it may be another bike lane in a door zone just for the sake of adding extra km's of bike lane.

IMO, not building around the interested but concerned cyclist results in unwanted behaviour like bikes on sidewalks, and bikes on nondesignated biking routes interrupting traffic.

[Calgarian]

I think the problem with 10th is the nature of 10th itself. That street has significantly less lights that any around it, so people use it to drive faster (myself included), in addition to that, the parking lots on the north side always have people pulling in and out during the rush hours, and I notice a lot of people get very frustrated having to wait, and shortcut around other drivers or to get to the turns.