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?
I always get stuck behind some jackass who's half asleep at the wheel doing 15 KM/H under. Previously, I'd have the option of passing him and being on my merry way so he could go about being an obstacle on his own time.
Now I don't have that option. That's why I find them a pain in the ass. Increase cycling capacity, sure, but don't do it at the cost of motorists. We're still a "driver's city" due to our sheer size, no amount of bike paths will change that.
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?
I have been for 13 years to get to work. This essentially kills an artery into downtown for North commuting, when the weather is not so good we will be seeing major delays to get across the river.
Coming home having 2 lanes go into 1 lane right after 16th Avenue will be an issue, the delay is a stop and merge and the light across 16th ave is now 1 more light longer, that doesnt seem long until you add a winter factor to it, then it will be more than a 1 light wait.
I hit 10th street around 8:00 everyday and I notice that traffic is slower overall or the routes around it are more congested as people are looking for alternate routes.
I've never biked in winter, but how easy is it to go uphill on 10th street in the middle of winter?
I always get stuck behind some jackass who's half asleep at the wheel doing 15 KM/H under. Previously, I'd have the option of passing him and being on my merry way so he could go about being an obstacle on his own time.
Now I don't have that option. That's why I find them a pain in the ass. Increase cycling capacity, sure, but don't do it at the cost of motorists. We're still a "driver's city" due to our sheer size, no amount of bike paths will change that.
Lane reversals on 10th would be a cool idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burn13
I have been for 13 years to get to work. This essentially kills an artery into downtown for North commuting, when the weather is not so good we will be seeing major delays to get across the river.
Coming home having 2 lanes go into 1 lane right after 16th Avenue will be an issue, the delay is a stop and merge and the light across 16th ave is now 1 more light longer, that doesnt seem long until you add a winter factor to it, then it will be more than a 1 light wait.
We'll have to wait for winter to see I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I hit 10th street around 8:00 everyday and I notice that traffic is slower overall or the routes around it are more congested as people are looking for alternate routes.
I've never biked in winter, but how easy is it to go uphill on 10th street in the middle of winter?
10th wouldn't be too hard to climb, you run lower tire pressures and it's no problem.
I would definitely have supported a lane-reversal set-up as opposed to the mess that it is right now. But it doesn't seem like they even gave it THAT much thought before going ahead with the pilot.
"Hey, we need to re-pave the roads."
"BIKE LANES?!?!?!?!"
"Okay but only for a couple months in the winter."
"YAAAAAAAAY!!!!!1!... wait, what?"
I would definitely have supported a lane-reversal set-up as opposed to the mess that it is right now. But it doesn't seem like they even gave it THAT much thought before going ahead with the pilot.
"Hey, we need to re-pave the roads."
"BIKE LANES?!?!?!?!"
"Okay but only for a couple months in the winter."
"YAAAAAAAAY!!!!!1!... wait, what?"
They appeared extremely disorganized when they surprised everyone with it.
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.
I would imagine it would take more people off transit or off the sidewalk than people out of cars.
They appeared extremely disorganized when they surprised everyone with it.
That's one thing that always impressed me with Calgary when I moved here. Looking at a map, you can see where civil planners and engineers had anticipated new arteries being placed. It seemed like someone really put some thought into the layout of the city (some of you who have lived all all your lives will laugh but I'm from Winnipeg so I can truly speak to the ineptitude of some civil planners).
But some of the decisions that have been made lately seemingly go against that well thought-out planning that I was so impressed with. And this pilot project is just one of those things.
I don't believe adding a bike lane will take that many cars off the road, therefore it will cause more congestion, which means longer ldle times which isn't good for the ol CO2 emissions.
Why don't i think it won't take many cars of the road? I believe the vast majority of people who would actually bike to work are already biking and if they aren't they are prob on transit or walking. I think most people who drive in from that part of town are coming from much further away and biking is prob not an option. And if you are living in Crescent Heights or Sunnyside and you are driving to work, ha ha i doubt you could get those people on a bike...
The intentions are good, but #### intentions, its time for long term solutions if thats even possible.
If you are gonna close that lane down make it a transit only lane OR maybe even an HVO lane.
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 10-18-2011 at 03:27 PM.
Heading into the core, 10th St. gets congested starting at about 5th Ave. The two traffic lights at Memorial Dr. and Kensignton Rd. is where the bottleneck begins. Coupled with the odd moron who parks in the no-park lane during rush hour and there you have your typical M-F morning rush hour traffic on 10th.
The removal of the southbound lane is not an issue, nor do I think it's going to be. Once drivers become familiar with the bike lanes and the shock and outrage wears off--if it hasn't already--I think it will be a non-issue, especially on this particular road for the reasons I mentioned.
Still, I think things could have been done , maybe not better, but different: I travel on the bike lanes parallel to 14th St., tying into Confederation Park once in a while. It would have been pretty cool if they put a bike path/lane from Confederation Park, south down 12th Ave. N.W. to SAIT, winding through campus (somewhere) and down 10th on the green space adjacent to SAIT. Then cut across 10th to 9A St. (under the C-Train bridge) and tie into the existing infrastructure there.
I know, I know: costs have now skyrocketed; just a thought. Anyway...
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I hope this project is successful and is expanded into the S.W. Cycling into the core is a nightmare from Westbrook.
I'm rather curious to cycle down 10th when it gets warmer. My fiancee lives in Triwood, and I head downtown from there on occasion.
And incidentally, I asked my Transit driver what he thought of the lanes the morning after they appeared, and he said he had no idea where he was supposed to be. I chucked at that--hopefully he's figured it out or has been given some guidance.
There is a bike path already along 9th Street, along the LRT tracks, leading to the bike/pedestrian bridge. Why dedicate another bike lane, one block away?
There is a bike path already along 9th Street, along the LRT tracks, leading to the bike/pedestrian bridge. Why dedicate another bike lane, one block away?
There is a bike path already along 9th Street, along the LRT tracks, leading to the bike/pedestrian bridge. Why dedicate another bike lane, one block away?
It is basically a continuation of the 9th street one, so you have a safe path up the hill. The one on 9th dead ends behind the Safeway. So you just scoot over one block, then get on the new path.
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Having a discussion on twitter now with a few people about the bike box, wouldn't it have made more sense to put the bike box in front of the southbound lanes of 10th street? Would it not have accomplished the same thing as the current box being on 5th avenue without making cyclists do some weird little repositioning?
Having a discussion on twitter now with a few people about the bike box, wouldn't it have made more sense to put the bike box in front of the southbound lanes of 10th street? Would it not have accomplished the same thing as the current box being on 5th avenue without making cyclists do some weird little repositioning?
That doesn't help cyclists turn left safely when the light is green. They would have to cut across lanes of moving traffic to get to the left lane to turn.
Or else, cyclists would have to come to a stop in the bike lane waiting for the light to turn, and then they would have to cut over in the bike lane.
