Council supports three new separated bike lanes downtown

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Heard this on the radio and it makes sense

I'm fine with it if bike licensing becomes mandatory. If you want to drive on the roadways you have to obey the laws and be licensed, so why not bikes? It makes ticketing much easier for police and brings in revenue from those that ruin it for law abiding cyclists.

By licensing bikes you also get a real number of cyclists not a made up number to push forward an agenda. It works both ways, if there's an increase in yearly bike licences then bike lanes get more funding.

Bike helmets on all roadways should also be mandatory just like they are for motorcycles.

More business for insurance companies too, as well as registries. Also, having a bike licensed might assist in recovering stolen bikes more easily. At least I think it would!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Nobody sticks their nose into you wanting to build a library or an overpass in the deep SE, so why do you feel that need to stick your nose into our neighborhoods?

I was honestly with you on this post, Table5. Except this part lol. C'mon man, you ever see the posts from inner city people in threads discussing suburban issues in Calgary?

[corporatejay]

To be fair that 7th street cycle lane is ridiculous. It connects to nothing on the south end, I just end up using the pathways. I think it was a bad spot to put the pilot and that's why people are soured.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I was honestly with you on this post, Table5. Except this part lol. C'mon man, you ever see the posts from inner city people in threads discussing suburban issues in Calgary?

I think on big-topic issues like long-term city-planning/funding, obviously people have opinions that are shared...but honestly, I have no idea what goes on at a community level in most neighborhoods outside of the inner-city (and don't really care that much either). Considering the small-potatoes scope and price tag of this project, this is not an issue that should make some guy in Tuscany lose sleep...just like I don't lose sleep if they want to build a community rink or a library.

[calgarygeologist]

Stephen Ave should not be open to cyclists but in all honest the city has really sucked at making Stephen Ave a really attractive and unique destination so I'd be okay with them scrapping the current plan and just opening it up to traffic all day, every day.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Why are people always so against something that will have such minimal impact on their lives, yet make a lot of others happy? Biking is cheap, easy, and promotes a healthy lifestyle. But god forbid we add 15 seconds to some guys commute.

Yeah yeah yeah hippie... if you could do the math (which hippies can't) you'd understand that 15 seconds X 2 commutes a day = 30 seconds. Which equals 2.5 minutes a week. Which = 10 minutes a month.

And you know what takes 10 minutes? Commuting from Copperfield.

So... just so you can la-dee-da around on your bicycle, you are adding one morning's commute to somebody who doesn't want to live in a goddanm shoebox in crime-infested Kensington.

It's not all about you.

[Yellefan]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

To be fair that 7th street cycle lane is ridiculous. It connects to nothing on the south end, I just end up using the pathways. I think it was a bad spot to put the pilot and that's why people are soured.

It connects with my office on the south end, it's like it was built just for me. I use it daily throughout the winder and although it often seems like it's empty, I see others using it every day when I'm riding to and from work. I don't use it in the spring/summer because I'm able to actually use the 10th ave "bike lane" when there is no snow which is a little bit more direct for me.

I don't ride for the earth, I ride for my wallet, I'm a cheap #######-- no parking costs, no gas costs and no gym membership since I get my workout on my way to/from work.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I'm fine with it if bike licensing becomes mandatory. If you want to drive on the roadways you have to obey the laws and be licensed, so why not bikes? It makes ticketing much easier for police and brings in revenue from those that ruin it for law abiding cyclists.

Ha. I wish.

It's the same thing every time -- "cyclists don't follow the rules grumble grumble grumble...", as if people in cars actually follow the rules.

[calumniate]

Man, can't wait to get my bike spoke noisemakers installed and cruise down Stephen Ave. Take that lifted turbo diesels!

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

More business for insurance companies too, as well as registries. Also, having a bike licensed might assist in recovering stolen bikes more easily. At least I think it would!

I would love having registration for my bike, I don't know why so many people are against this.Its not exactly rocket science to do it, especially with the technology we have now. Just make a damn licence sticker with a qr code, and any cop could scan it with a smart phone.
In Tokyo it was routine to get stopped by the police for a registration check at Ward bounderies, and they recovered many a stolen steed.

[MrMastodonFarm]

One of my favourite Calgarypuck memes is stampsx2 saying something ludicrous and frinkprof putting the smack down.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I was honestly with you on this post, Table5. Except this part lol. C'mon man, you ever see the posts from inner city people in threads discussing suburban issues in Calgary?

We have forum posts. "They" have a newspaper.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...528/story.html



I have to say including Stephen Ave just boggles my mind. Way too dangerous. I think the smart cyclist will avoid this lane and stick to riding on safer streets.
You wouldn't put a one-way car/truck lane down the middle of Stephen Ave with a speed limit of 35-40k, why would you put a two-way bike lane there? It will (or should) be roughly the same width.

Yes you would. We do that now. Stephen ave is open to vehicle traffic now after 6:00pm. Has for years. Because of the environment now, cars travel slowly and interact with pedestrians just fine.

During busy lunch hour times in the summer and festivals, bikes will not be allowed. Go to Stephen Ave at morning or evening rush hour and you can shoot a cannon down the middle of the road. The pedestrians that are there naturally stick to the sidewalk portion. It's not really a "lane" it's just granting cyclists legal access to the street pretty much as is. It'll work well.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

To be fair that 7th street cycle lane is ridiculous. It connects to nothing on the south end, I just end up using the pathways. I think it was a bad spot to put the pilot and that's why people are soured.

It will now. It'll connect to an 8th avenue route which will run end to end downtown, and in turn connect to a 5th street cycle track, an 9th street SE route, a future 8th Street SW route down to 17th as well as the current 11th street bike lanes.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think what some people always forgot in this debate, is that the inner-city is a lot of people's neighborhood and home. It's not just a place to go to work, or maybe get a drink, and then go away. The people who live here, and drive here, and park here…i.e., people who will be the most affected….are vastly for it. Go ahead and look up how many community associations vastly support it.

This is how people who live in these neighborhoods want to get around to areas that are too far to walk. I'm a huge car guy, but I don't want to always drive to a place 15 blocks away...and I'm sure you don't need me to drive either, taking up a lane and taking up parking space. Being able to bike in a safe and efficient way, yes even if its only for 7-8 months a year, would be amazing.

On this note, I'd like to provide an excerpt from the letter sent to council by the Beltline Transportation Committee, which I'm involved with. I won't post the whole thing so as not to have this post be too long. I'll just give the point-form of advantages that were listed:

- New residential and commercial development is growing our community. Beltline is one of the fastest growing urban districts in Canada - the community can accommodate more than double its current population. [EDITED TO ADD: Population currently just over 20 000, can grow to 50 000] The commercial and retail business sectors are also experiencing growth. A network of cycle tracks would serve the growing number of residents and businesses.

- Cycle tracks would enhance city-wide mobility. Implementing this in Beltline is a key to access both to and from the Centre City. With road and transit access to the Centre City already having great capacity, building high-capacity bicycle infrastructure is a priority. With the high demand for safe routes, the take-up will be tremendous.

- Dedicated cycling infrastructure will provide residents of our community with a convenient and safe way to use their bicycles to live their day to day lives. This includes going to and from work, school, shopping, and social events.

- Segregated cycle routes open these corridors to more than just the most fearless of riders. This makes bicycling within our community more attractive to a wider demographic range. Making bicycling less stressful and dangerous can only enhance Beltline’s desirability. Separating bicycle traffic also makes travelling by automobiles and by foot a safer and less stressful experience.

- Providing safe and comfortable bicycle access to recreational and cultural destinations such as the rivers, parks, Stampede, and events adds value for residents and visitors to Beltline. The corridors selected provide direct or very proximate cycle routes to a good measure of the places and events that make the community a great urban area to choose to live or visit. This would bring existing and especially new cyclists to the area.

- Bicycling has become an icon of urban living and tourism. Beltline’s past, present and future is urban. In the long view, providing a safe and comfortable network of bike routes satiates a strongly growing demand for the urban lifestyle. In an area where public space is at a premium, creating on-road cycle tracks is the best way to provide this area with the bike infrastructure that will allow it to thrive.

Another thought that has been on my mind in the past few days as the "debate" has progressed.

There's this notion that Wards 7 and 8, downtown, Centre City, Inner City, Beltline, etc. "belong to everyone" in that people who don't live here take an interest in it that they wouldn't take for, say Willow Park if they don't live near there. This is, of course, because it is where a lot of people work and a lot of people play. It's the cultural centre of the city, whether it be for sporting events, Stampede, the rivers and entertainment districts. There's plenty of people who never go or only do so 5 times a year but that's extremely uncommon when compared to any other area of the city.

There is something to that, absolutely, and I think a lot of people that live here embrace that to an extent and part of that energy and attractiveness is why they live here in the first place. The thing about that notion is that it can be a double-edged sword.

I think that the idea that Centre City/downtown/Ward 7 and 8, whatever "belong to everyone" should be a reason to invest in it. The numbers present a strong argument for this too, as Centre City (made up of Downtown, West End, East Village, Beltline) accounts for 43% of the property tax revenue for the entire city. You want to take care of the goose that lays the golden egg.

The problem comes when people translate that interest in the area and try to exert undue influence over the area, because it happens to be part of their commute, a sacred cow to them, or whatever. Especially in cases such as this when the residents of the area want something that really doesn't cost much relatively (in this case 2.5% of the capital budget), produces all of the benefits listed above and that results in a manageable sacrifice to automobile travel times.

Many of the councilors that voted against the cycle tracks actually advocate for cycling projects in their wards (with accompanying support from the councilors who supported cycle tracks of course, who also have voted more often than not for other infrastructure in suburban wards). However, when it comes to investing in the same thing in the downtown area, said that they just couldn't, basically because their constituents commute or visit the area and would be inconvenienced. This was true most prevalently for Ward Sutherland, Diane Colley-Urquhart, Ray Jones and Jim Stevenson.

As a good example, Ward 1 councilor Ward Sutherland supported an on-street cycling lane project Bowness Road (in his ward), and was notably moved to do so because the Bowness Community Association supported it. However, even though the same thing is fundamentally true with cycle tracks (community associations support), the principle doesn't apply.

Getting back to the position of the community association, we recognize and embrace our role in city-wide mobility, but also recognize that there needs to be a balance between the interests of local residents and businesses and the interests of the rest of the city. Right now the balance heavily favours commuters.

-------------------------

This post was meant to highlight some of the higher-level cultural and social science-y points. I could get deeper into the hard facts and numbers of the whole thing, whether they be ridership, dollars, cordon counts, etc. but I'll leave that for now. Hopefully someone else takes up that cause if it comes up, I don't sit in front of a computer for work so won't be able to get into it tomorrow.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Heard this on the radio and it makes sense

I'm fine with it if bike licensing becomes mandatory. If you want to drive on the roadways you have to obey the laws and be licensed, so why not bikes? It makes ticketing much easier for police and brings in revenue from those that ruin it for law abiding cyclists.

By licensing bikes you also get a real number of cyclists not a made up number to push forward an agenda. It works both ways, if there's an increase in yearly bike licences then bike lanes get more funding.

Bike helmets on all roadways should also be mandatory just like they are for motorcycles.

I really think the reason car drivers are upset with bicylists simply comes down to jealousy. They were sold on the idea that owning a car equals freedom for them. Now they have sunk ~$20,000+ into a car plus they pay thousands ever year in maintenance, insurance, parking, and gas all to be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and see a bicyclist fly past them.
Like a stereotypical BMW driver, the more they spent on their car, the more entitled to the road they believe they are.

In terms of the damage that bicyclists are doing to the roads compared to cars, they pay way more than their fair share in taxes towards roads.

A majority of bicyclists are also car owners, so for me (currently own 1 car and 2 bikes) I would have to pay for 3 vehicles annually. As Finkprof noted that would accomplish almost absolutely nothing--these fees pretty much just cover administrative costs.

[strombad]

So does this pipe down the annoying people protesting the bike lanes downtown?

What an out of touch bunch of losers.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes you would. We do that now. Stephen ave is open to vehicle traffic now after 6:00pm. Has for years. Because of the environment now, cars travel slowly and interact with pedestrians just fine.

During busy lunch hour times in the summer and festivals, bikes will not be allowed. Go to Stephen Ave at morning or evening rush hour and you can shoot a cannon down the middle of the road. The pedestrians that are there naturally stick to the sidewalk portion. It's not really a "lane" it's just granting cyclists legal access to the street pretty much as is. It'll work well.

I know on certain parts, but not down the whole thing.

[Bunk]

Fairly recently a Councillor was contemplating some sort of motion on bike licensing - asked me what I thought. This was my reply:

1. Compliance: There doesn't seem to be a single instance where an initiative to license bicycles has resulted in any useful amount of compliance.

2. Enforcement: It is unlikely that police are going to expend additional resources (nor is it desirable for them to expend resources) to check for compliance of bicycle licensing.

3. Children: Bicycles, unlike motor vehicles are operated by people of all ages, including children. It's not practical to expect children to license a bicycle. If they are not to be licensed, are they not allowed to cycle until the licensing age? If children are exempt from licensing, what would be the reasoning?

4. Cost to Administer: In almost every jurisdiction that has instituted bike licences, they have been dropped because the revenue recovery is not enough to administer the program.

5. Accidents: There is no need to link the bicycle involved in an accident to the owner - there is only need to link the bicyclist to an the accident. There is no evidence that a licensed bicyclist operates his or her bicycle more safely than a non-licensed cyclist. Furthermore, motor-vehicles if operated irresponsibly pose a serious threat to life - bicycles do not pose the same threat to public safety.

6. Theft: I could see a program to voluntarily register one's bike with the police or some other database to assist in the return of stolen bikes, but again, compliance will be very low in a mandatory system, so it will not likely be effective.

7. Jurisdiction: The Province has the authority to mandate vehicle licensing. Under the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, it does not seem apparent that the City has the authority to introduce mandatory licensing of any vehicle type.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

I really think the reason car drivers are upset with bicylists simply comes down to jealousy. They were sold on the idea that owning a car equals freedom for them. Now they have sunk ~$20,000+ into a car plus they pay thousands ever year in maintenance, insurance, parking, and gas all to be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and see a bicyclist fly past them.
Like a stereotypical BMW driver, the more they spent on their car, the more entitled to the road they believe they are.

I've seen this argument before, and, respectfully, I don't think there's much truth to it, or that it's helpful dialogue.

I think the scenario right now is that biking in downtown traffic is largely left to people that really want to do it. This means an assertive, bordering on aggressive, physically fit, experienced and heavily male-dominated ridership base. There's two very prevalent stereotypes: 1. 25-50 year old male in a helmet, spandex who is assertive or, worse, aggressive and trying to beat his best time every day. 2. Millennial hipster. People who aren't inclined toward those lifestyles/personality types aren't necessarily jealous. In a lot of cases, they just can't identify with it or relate.

Now, I know that probably seems disparaging to people who currently ride regularly downtown, as it is whenever stereotypes are invoked. I don't mean it to be. Of course not everyone fits into these stereotypes.

My argument is that the cycle tracks will open up the possibility of cycling in these areas to what is in fact a majority of people (56% according to the cycling strategy) who want to cycle more but who currently feel too unsafe and under confident in their abilities with the current environment downtown. Demographically, this means more women, children, seniors, families, less athletically inclined people, inexperienced cyclists, etc.