So, what does everyone think about this new bike lane on 10th street? [MRG]

[pylon]

Arg... don't know what thread to use...

Anyway, posted this over in the original thread... my take on it since I am everyone's favorite cyclist to pick on:

Honestly, I love the thing. It is nice fresh pavement, and it takes the spookiest part of my ride out, which is the bottom of 10th, all the way to Northmount Dr. And I don't have to worry about getting mowed down.

But honestly, the three times I have used it thus far, I haven't seen one other person using it. Albeit, it is late in the year. I would rather, for the motorists sake, go back to the old Commando cyclist way if nobody is going to use it. The sidewalk on the east side of 10th, is plenty wide enough to go up the hill pedaling, and you are only going at a jogging pace anyway when yo are climbing that hill (about 12kph). If the city just made that sidewalk an exception, like a few others in the city, I think that is a better solution, since everyone uses it going up the hill anyway. Going down on the other side, you can keep up with the traffic at 50 or 60 k, so that is a non issue.

Either way, I am not complaining since it is not on my drive route, and I only take that road when I cycle. But I can see how drivers would be annoyed with it. I think they will have to give it until into next summer to really determine the success/failure of it.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

If we built a network of city wide roads for a special group of 1,000 cars, people would hang the mayor. That's ridiculous.

How many km of road do we have for how many cars? I tried really hard to find this and had no luck.

How many km of bikelanes do we have for how many bikes?

Now what is the width of a bikelane compared to a vehicular lane?

How many square metres of asphalt is a cyclist commuter getting for their tax dollars compared to motorists?

Given the generally shorter commutes of cyclists, I'm guessing the math works out to bike lanes not being too ridiculous at all.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

If we built a network of city wide roads for a special group of 1,000 cars, people would hang the mayor. That's ridiculous.

I'm hoping the city is doing this experiment just to show cyclists how it will fail so they quit asking for bike paths everywhere.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

If we built a network of city wide roads for a special group of 1,000 cars, people would hang the mayor. That's ridiculous.

These lanes help keep over 1,000 cars out of downtown every day. That's 1,000 less cars you have to sit behind in traffic, reducing your commute time and 1,000 less cars that need parking spots which keeps the cost of parking down. Yes parking is expensive, but if demand went up by 1,000 cars, the prices would rise even quicker.

By giving commuters a safer and more convenient way to cycle into the downtown core, you are encouraging more of them to do it. Obviously there are going to be more cyclists in the summer than on the minus 30 degree days, but doesn't it make more sense to have the lanes built now rather than waiting until spring?

[Burn13]

Remove the bike lane or have lane reversal for the morning and evening traffic from the core up 10th street to Northmount. (although they didnt paint the lines right to even make this possible). One lane during rush hour arrrgh! I've seen it 2 lanes solid all the way up 10th to 20 ave in the winters.

Reality check is when it snows there will be a 2 hour delay in traffic, that's the nightmare we are facing with this think now approach.

Still phoning 311 and talking to Alderman about it.

[Burn13]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

These lanes help keep over 1,000 cars out of downtown every day. That's 1,000 less cars you have to sit behind in traffic, reducing your commute time and 1,000 less cars that need parking spots which keeps the cost of parking down. Yes parking is expensive, but if demand went up by 1,000 cars, the prices would rise even quicker.

By giving commuters a safer and more convenient way to cycle into the downtown core, you are encouraging more of them to do it. Obviously there are going to be more cyclists in the summer than on the minus 30 degree days, but doesn't it make more sense to have the lanes built now rather than waiting until spring?

1000 cars? with half the driving space now? How many cars commute that way in a day? 2000?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Let's not forget the fact that that stat was 1000 people commute by bike YEAR ROUND.

That number is WAY higher than 1000 for proablby 8 months of the year when there isn't snow on the ground.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Burn13

Remove the bike lane or have lane reversal for the morning and evening traffic from the core up 10th street to Northmount. (although they didnt paint the lines right to even make this possible). One lane during rush hour arrrgh! I've seen it 2 lanes solid all the way up 10th to 20 ave in the winters.

Reality check is when it snows there will be a 2 hour delay in traffic, that's the nightmare we are facing with this think now approach.

Still phoning 311 and talking to Alderman about it.

There's a 2 hour delay on EVERY road here when it snows. Doesn't matter if there's 3 lanes like centre street.

[Burn13]

Originally Posted by habernac

There's a 2 hour delay on EVERY road here when it snows. Doesn't matter if there's 3 lanes like centre street.

Centre street will be 4hrs then with all the diverting motorists from 10th then.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

These lanes help keep over 1,000 cars out of downtown every day. That's 1,000 less cars you have to sit behind in traffic, reducing your commute time and 1,000 less cars that need parking spots which keeps the cost of parking down. Yes parking is expensive, but if demand went up by 1,000 cars, the prices would rise even quicker.

By giving commuters a safer and more convenient way to cycle into the downtown core, you are encouraging more of them to do it. Obviously there are going to be more cyclists in the summer than on the minus 30 degree days, but doesn't it make more sense to have the lanes built now rather than waiting until spring?

Rubbish, anyone who rides their bike in Calgary in Febuary is going to ride it whether there is a bike lane or not.
Bike lanes should be seasonal, put em out in May, close them down in September and let the cars back in, and I say this as a bike rider that used to commute from Port Coquitlam to Kits on a bike every day

[habernac]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Rubbish, anyone who rides their bike in Calgary in Febuary is going to ride it whether there is a bike lane or not.
Bike lanes should be seasonal, put em out in May, close them down in September and let the cars back in, and I say this as a bike rider that used to commute from Port Coquitlam to Kits on a bike every day

The entire continent of Europe disagrees with you. Bikes are seasonal here only because there isn't a proper infrastructure to use them on.

[username]

If there were bike lanes I would probably use them to commute to work. I just don't want to be that guy on the bike slowing down a traffice lane.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by habernac

The entire continent of Europe disagrees with you. Bikes are seasonal here only because there isn't a proper infrastructure to use them on.

The entire continent of europe is mostly flat, dryer and considerably warmer than Canada.

And I have commuted here and there, there is little more in the way of bike infrastructure in any of it, the only difference was europeans were/are considerably poorer than us and so a car was/is a luxury, what puts europeans on bikes is an efficient public transit network, that way when you look out of the window and it is pissing down you can catch a bus, if there isn't an efficiant alternative to cycling you end up buying a car, if you own a car you end up driving becuase it is the most pleasent way to get around when the weather is crappy.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

These lanes help keep over 1,000 cars out of downtown every day. That's 1,000 less cars you have to sit behind in traffic, reducing your commute time and 1,000 less cars that need parking spots which keeps the cost of parking down. Yes parking is expensive, but if demand went up by 1,000 cars, the prices would rise even quicker.

You can make arguments for bike lanes, but the idea that it will reduce the commute time for drivers is ridiculous.

They've taken 50% of the lanes into downtown away from drivers and given them to cyclists. Are you honestly saying that 50% of the people currently driving on 10th street will switch to cycling? Even in the winter? I call bs on that.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The Surprising Rise of Minneapolis as a Top Bike Town

Despite its cold weather and spread-out development patterns, a Midwestern city beat Portland, San Francisco and Boulder for the title of #1 Bike City. Jay Walljasper explains how.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/51910

Calgary covers nearly 5 times the land that Minneapolis does.

Calgary has ~635 KM of shared-use paths in addition to ~260 KM of bikeways on streets. We're definitely not lacking in this area. We need to focus more on bike paths that are separate from traffic instead of reducing our automobile capacity. The paths on 10th Street are a pain in the ass, to be honest.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Calgary covers nearly 5 times the land that Minneapolis does.

Calgary has ~635 KM of shared-use paths in addition to ~260 KM of bikeways on streets. We're definitely not lacking in this area. We need to focus more on bike paths that are separate from traffic instead of reducing our automobile capacity. The paths on 10th Street are a pain in the ass, to be honest.

Does anyone actually drive this road as part of their commute? Because other than the first few days where the city hadn't yet painted proper lines, I have heard that there are zero issues with traffic. I watched a few minutes of video footage showing no massive backups, traffic was moving normally.

I don't ride this route, can anyone confirm/deny out of the ordinary traffic problems?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You can make arguments for bike lanes, but the idea that it will reduce the commute time for drivers is ridiculous.

They've taken 50% of the lanes into downtown away from drivers and given them to cyclists. Are you honestly saying that 50% of the people currently driving on 10th street will switch to cycling? Even in the winter? I call bs on that.

Let me recap this thread:

habernac stated more than 1,000 cyclists commute year round.

THE SCUD stated it's ridculous that Calgary build bike lanes to accomodate 1,000 people.

My argument was that these 1,000 people would have to drive if they weren't biking. That would add 1,000 cars to the road, commute, drive time and parking.

afc wimbledon said people will ride whether there are bike lanes or not. I am saying if you give people bike lanes where they feel safe, more people will bike. username appears to be one of these people.

bizaro86, you are saying that it is ridiculous that if more people bike into work, that it could lower the commute time for drivers. How is it ridiculous? By taking drivers and putting them on bikes, you are reducing the amount of cars. With less cars on the road the commute time is quicker. It is faster to drive downtown at midnight than at 8am. Although the difference would not be that severe, it is the same idea. I'm not saying 50% of the drivers will switch to cycling. I am saying that if you give people better options to bike to work, more people will use them. With a city population that continues to grow, the city itself needs to find more ways to get these people into downtown. By creating bike lanes they are helping to reduce commute times and lowering the effect on the environment. The change won't be seen overnight, but it should be seen.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Let me recap this thread:

habernac stated more than 1,000 cyclists commute year round.

THE SCUD stated it's ridculous that Calgary build bike lanes to accomodate 1,000 people.

My argument was that these 1,000 people would have to drive if they weren't biking. That would add 1,000 cars to the road, commute, drive time and parking.

afc wimbledon said people will ride whether there are bike lanes or not. I am saying if you give people bike lanes where they feel safe, more people will bike. username appears to be one of these people.

bizaro86, you are saying that it is ridiculous that if more people bike into work, that it could lower the commute time for drivers. How is it ridiculous? By taking drivers and putting them on bikes, you are reducing the amount of cars. With less cars on the road the commute time is quicker. It is faster to drive downtown at midnight than at 8am. Although the difference would not be that severe, it is the same idea. I'm not saying 50% of the drivers will switch to cycling. I am saying that if you give people better options to bike to work, more people will use them. With a city population that continues to grow, the city itself needs to find more ways to get these people into downtown. By creating bike lanes they are helping to reduce commute times and lowering the effect on the environment. The change won't be seen overnight, but it should be seen.

I bet more than half them would walk/transit instead of drive.

[Burn13]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Let me recap this thread:

habernac stated more than 1,000 cyclists commute year round.

THE SCUD stated it's ridculous that Calgary build bike lanes to accomodate 1,000 people.

My argument was that these 1,000 people would have to drive if they weren't biking. That would add 1,000 cars to the road, commute, drive time and parking.

afc wimbledon said people will ride whether there are bike lanes or not. I am saying if you give people bike lanes where they feel safe, more people will bike. username appears to be one of these people.

bizaro86, you are saying that it is ridiculous that if more people bike into work, that it could lower the commute time for drivers. How is it ridiculous? By taking drivers and putting them on bikes, you are reducing the amount of cars. With less cars on the road the commute time is quicker. It is faster to drive downtown at midnight than at 8am. Although the difference would not be that severe, it is the same idea. I'm not saying 50% of the drivers will switch to cycling. I am saying that if you give people better options to bike to work, more people will use them. With a city population that continues to grow, the city itself needs to find more ways to get these people into downtown. By creating bike lanes they are helping to reduce commute times and lowering the effect on the environment. The change won't be seen overnight, but it should be seen.

It wont be seen, this last paragraph is a simplistic way of looking at it. The problem will be exponential not linear. Traffic backs up cars can only go on roads which are one lane instead of 2 now. You want to get people downtown, a carpool lane would be more efficient way of doing it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Let me recap this thread:

habernac stated more than 1,000 cyclists commute year round.

THE SCUD stated it's ridculous that Calgary build bike lanes to accomodate 1,000 people.

My argument was that these 1,000 people would have to drive if they weren't biking. That would add 1,000 cars to the road, commute, drive time and parking.

afc wimbledon said people will ride whether there are bike lanes or not. I am saying if you give people bike lanes where they feel safe, more people will bike. username appears to be one of these people.

bizaro86, you are saying that it is ridiculous that if more people bike into work, that it could lower the commute time for drivers. How is it ridiculous? By taking drivers and putting them on bikes, you are reducing the amount of cars. With less cars on the road the commute time is quicker. It is faster to drive downtown at midnight than at 8am. Although the difference would not be that severe, it is the same idea. I'm not saying 50% of the drivers will switch to cycling. I am saying that if you give people better options to bike to work, more people will use them. With a city population that continues to grow, the city itself needs to find more ways to get these people into downtown. By creating bike lanes they are helping to reduce commute times and lowering the effect on the environment. The change won't be seen overnight, but it should be seen.

If more people bike, that takes cars off the road, speeding up commutes. If you cut the capacity of a road (by ~50%!) you slow down commutes. The part I called BS on was the statement this would speed up commutes. If you increase the time spent on a section by 50%, and then decrease it 10%, that's still a net increase.

I'm all in favour of more bike paths. But taking 50% of the capacity of one of the main routes from the north into downtown to do it is a bad idea, IMO.

An extra bike lane would reduce commute times. A bike lane that displaces a car lane doesn't, especially in a city where the vast majority of people will not commute by bike a significant portion of the year.