I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I think 4th Street SW, would be a much better fit. It's traditionally a slower commute, and 1/2 of the length of the west lane (south bound), is full of parked vehicles as it is. Much of 4th Street SW, is the Mission/Belt-line area, and it's more conducive to bike culture. As well 4th street, dissipates bicyle traffic easily to the Elbow River bike path system.

4th SW actually is a big problem from a congestion standpoint and different points, particularly for transit (buses like the #3) - for a central north-south spine, 5th is much more likely (it for instance has been missing a left lane for construction for 8th Ave place for two years at its busiest point without too much issue, also its underpass has a lot more space to work with).

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Arsenal14

Speaking of signal synchronization and pedestrian priority - is there any way to get the signals at 10th, 11th, 12th Avenues timed so it's possible to walk at a somewhat normal pace and not have to stop at every intersection? Right now those three are timed pretty well for vehicles, but are terrible for pedestrians.

Very difficult to time for both modes effectively when travel speed is so drastically different.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Very difficult to time for both modes effectively when travel speed is so drastically different.

Solution: 5 km/h speed limit.

[frinkprof]

Continuing the 7th Street West cycle track south through Beltline and eventually hooking up with the Elbow River pathway would be a good option.

It creates a strong westerly bike route through the Centre City, leverages the Peace Bridge and exising 7th Street cycle track infrastructure to link all of north Calgary to all of south Calgary without needing to link up to an east-west route in the busiest part of the city to traverse the obstacle of the CPR tracks.. It would need a new underpass of the tracks, but that has long been a goal because the existing underpasses (or small number thereof) are a limiting factor for all modes of transportation.

The community association has proposed it but it's fallen on deaf ears and isn't even being really considered or studied as part of the route selection process.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by fotze

Well and that's why we have experts looking at these things and not the general public.

Experts? My toddler could design <insert infrastructure here> better than them.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I often cannot travel more than a block at a time when going North-South (or vice versa).

[...]

Does that strike you as proper signal optimization?

It is the signal optimization that is possible with the CTrain running down 7th Avenue. If what I recall is correct, it is incredibly hard to get the North-South synchronization as the CTrain has the priority and one delayed door closing can have a cascade effect.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Nice pyramid, which seems to ignore people's needs.

Walking, cycling, and public transit may be sustainable, but they aren't particularly realistic options when it comes to transporting large volumes of goods.

Twice a month grocery shopping? Good luck strapping all of your produce and canned goods on your back, or on your bike, or carrying it on a bus or train.

Holiday shopping spree? Hope you can get all of your gifts home without getting mugged when you have a bundle of goods under each of your outstretched arm.

Some DIY items that you picked up at Home Depot to improve your house? It might be tough carrying those 2x4's and table saws around, but I'm sure that you can manage doing so without a car.

They can all be done but some might have to be done differently.

Land Use Changes
Land use and transportation planning are inextricably linked and have a massive effect on each other. If we build communities where residents can live in close proximity to the grocery and/or it is located next to a BRT/LRT station, people could walk to the grocery or pick them up on the way home from work. It should be noted that this might require a personal change as people would most likely need to complete their shopping more often than once every two weeks.

Retail Service Changes
Online shopping and free delivery can have a massive impact. I cannot remember the exact figure but online grocery shopping has reduced traffic in the U.K.. That would kill two birds with one stone as people could still be able complete their shopping every two weeks and the amount of vehicle miles travelled would be reduced. If places like Ikea or Best Buy began to offer free delivery, people wouldn't have to worry about hauling large appliances, electronics or furniture on their bicycles or pull-cart.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Of course, all of this commentary and little picture show seems to ignore one significant realization: traffic light sychronization helps with the flow of automobile traffic just as much as it helps with the flow of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. So if you improve the light timing for cars, others can benefit as well.

Not when you take the difference in average speeds for each mode into consideration.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

But I see no reason to fiddle with traffic light timing and turning options for bicycles at the expense of automobiles...

As I mentioned earlier, the automobile was the sacred cow for quite sometime. The City has to play catch-up and allow other modes back into the game.

Originally Posted by Bunk

I think a more useful tool is this diagram, which lives in the Calgary Transportation Plan as well as the Complete Streets Guide (which sets out right-of-way standards for all our various street types.

One of the things I'm starting to question is in non-industrial area, can't/shouldn't most arterial streets be urban boulevards? In this case, I'm looking at urban boulevards being similar to the parkways in Brooklyn.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Arsenal14

Speaking of signal synchronization and pedestrian priority - is there any way to get the signals at 10th, 11th, 12th Avenues timed so it's possible to walk at a somewhat normal pace and not have to stop at every intersection? Right now those three are timed pretty well for vehicles, but are terrible for pedestrians.

This is a growing issue that comes up more and more often as the population of the community (and surrounding communities) grows and as many of those people are walking.

I'm on the transportation committee in Beltline and we haven't looked into this deeply recently but I hope to soon after getting through some of the other items we've been dealing with.

In a cursory way though, I'm not sure how much more can be done without making some larger, more far-reaching changes such as reverting to 2-way operation of 11th and 12th Avenue (which may actually happen, it has been proposed).

Like Bunk said, optimizing for different travel speeds of various modes is tricky, and the fact that east-west blocks are much larger than north-south blocks comes into play as well.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I don't live downtown and own a vehicle but I have a Safeway across the street and I actually prefer to go shopping by walking there. It forces me to only buy the things I need and in turn saves me money.

Are you suggesting that people who drive to the grocery store, by virtue of their mode of transportation, lack the self control to only buy the things that they need?

Originally Posted by Cabbage

For larger items, you can always get them delivered.

By Amazon drones?

If not, isn't the delivery company on the road, and don't you think that they might benefit from optimized traffic light timings?

After all, you might be able to get your item delivered slightly quicker...

Originally Posted by Bunk

On that particular project, traffic movement was sped up - if anything it was at the slight expense of the convenience of pedestrians as they may have to wait slightly longer at lights while an advance left-turn green is going for instance. On the other hand, pedestrians benefit from not having cyclists on the sidewalk. Seemed like a win-win for everyone.

Okay, well, let's be honest for a second.

Most pedestrians (myself included) pay little attention to the walk/don't walk signs if there is no cross-traffic around that could mow them down while they walk across a street.

Furthermore, isn't it against the law for cyclists to be on the sidewalk anyway? I know that there are some exceptions, and on some roads bicycles-on-the-sidewalk is explictly allowed, but justifying certain cycling improvements by saying that they get bicyclists off the sidewalk is meaningless, when the cyclists never should have been on the sidewalk in the first place.

It is a bad analogy, I know, but isn't it like rationalizing the construction of a garage by saying that the garage allowed me to get my car off of my neighbor's roof?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The Pyramid is a pretty blunt look at mode prioritization.

Yes, but for once I was trying to be succinct. The pyramid is a good representation of the concept.

Your post is certainly a must-read though for deeper understanding, thanks.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Are you suggesting that people who drive to the grocery store, by virtue of their mode of transportation, lack the self control to only buy the things that they need?



By Amazon drones?

If not, isn't the delivery company on the road, and don't you think that they might benefit from optimized traffic light timings?

After all, you might be able to get your item delivered slightly quicker...



Okay, well, let's be honest for a second.

Most pedestrians (myself included) pay little attention to the walk/don't walk signs if there is no cross-traffic around that could mow them down while they walk across a street.

Furthermore, isn't it against the law for cyclists to be on the sidewalk anyway? I know that there are some exceptions, and on some roads bicycles-on-the-sidewalk is explictly allowed, but justifying certain cycling improvements by saying that they get bicyclists off the sidewalk is meaningless, when the cyclists never should have been on the sidewalk in the first place.

It is a bad analogy, I know, but isn't it like rationalizing the construction of a garage by saying that the garage allowed me to get my car off of my neighbor's roof?

Its more akin to rationalizing the construction of roads so that people don't drive on the sidewalk:



(My photo btw)

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

In a cursory way though, I'm not sure how much more can be done without making some larger, more far-reaching changes such as reverting to 2-way operation of 11th and 12th Avenue (which may actually happen, it has been proposed).

Why on earth change something that works? It will just add volume to 4th, 5th and 6th ave to avoid the newly created 17th ave type streets.

4th and 5th street goes north south and is somewhat well syncronized. I use that if i'm in a rush. I fully expect to wait on 8th or 11th street.

Light syncronization will never make the pedestrian, cyclist and car happy. Syncronize based on the most users.

More bike lanes, less parking, now pedestrian synchronization, Is the city trying to shut down all vehicle traffic in the downtown area by 2020 or something?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

How about working on optimizing and properly synchronizing the traffic lights in the city for the automobile traffic first?

IMHO they should be synchronized based on pedestrian needs (at least in winter). Delaying people who are sitting in their warm cars is not a big deal compared to delaying those who are out in the cold.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

In the Downtown core area on weekends, which is when I usually drive my car, I often cannot travel more than a block at a time when going North-South (or vice versa). Which is to say, when the traffic light turns green, I can usually go no farther than to the next block (even if I am the first car at the light) because the traffic light at the next block is red. Even when there is no traffic on the crossing roads.

When going East-West (or vice versa), if I get a green light at one particular intersection, I tend to get green lights at all of them, but if I don't, then I'm often stuck going two or three blocks at a time.

Does that strike you as proper signal optimization?

The East-West routes have priority, as the downtown layout is designed to get people to Crowfoot/Deerfoot... and most of the North-South routes stop at 9th Ave anyways.

Originally Posted by Arsenal14

Speaking of signal synchronization and pedestrian priority - is there any way to get the signals at 10th, 11th, 12th Avenues timed so it's possible to walk at a somewhat normal pace and not have to stop at every intersection? Right now those three are timed pretty well for vehicles, but are terrible for pedestrians.

This. So many times, this. Getting from the LRT to the beltline is miserable. I feel like it would work if we made it so that the lights were synced for cars, then the cycle time was set such that the lights would cycle once (or twice?) in the time it takes pedestrians to get there. Perhaps that would lead to too much time on yellow or something though.

I've also noticed that the lights at 8th St and 7th Ave SW have changed. Nice big window for the LRT, but it seems to be even more than they need and it's absurdly long as a pedestrian. It's particularly annoying when you're trying to catch a train and you get caught at that light... so close, but yet so far.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

IMHO they should be synchronized based on pedestrian needs (at least in winter). Delaying people who are sitting in their warm cars is not a big deal compared to delaying those who are out in the cold.

Nope, all synchronization decisions should be based on commute minutes saved. No value should be placed on the type of waiting because one form of transportation is not better than another.

There should be some consideration taken for the future cmmute minutes saved based on the ideal % of drivers, cyclists and cars. So if by changing the timing there would be more walkers then consider it. But no way should one guy in the cold outweigh 6 people in cars. Instead the guy walking should buy a touque.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Why on earth change something that works? It will just add volume to 4th, 5th and 6th ave to avoid the newly created 17th ave type streets.

4th and 5th street goes north south and is somewhat well syncronized. I use that if i'm in a rush. I fully expect to wait on 8th or 11th street.

Not really sure which part or parts you're referring to, but I think the generality that traffic patterns and demands don't stay static applies. The population and travel patterns in the area are changing and other changes in the transportation network can have effects in nearby areas, thereby making other changes more or less viable.

In the case of 11th and 12th, they were originally 2-way streets and the conversion to 1-way operation wasn't that long ago in the larger scheme of things. 2 changes have made it possible to revisit the idea of reverting to 2-way operation. The first is the West LRT which has and will continue to reduce the pressure on east-west routes to, from and within the Centre City. The other one is the addition of through traffic on 10th Avenue at 14th Street via the installation of a traffic signal. 10th, 11th and 12th can be viewed as a sort of "triplet" system where patterns with one of the streets or changes made strongly affects the other two. Reverting to 2 way operation has the positives of making a more attractive environment for current and future residents, pedestrians and will encourage a stronger retail presence.

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Light syncronization will never make the pedestrian, cyclist and car happy. Syncronize based on the most users.

More bike lanes, less parking, now pedestrian synchronization, Is the city trying to shut down all vehicle traffic in the downtown area by 2020 or something?

Most users when, and under what conditions? Travel patterns have changed and will continue to. Beltline will more than double in population and nearby communities will also see increases and many of these people will be walking as a large part of their primary commute. Many will drive as well. Building a bridge across a river shouldn't be justified by the number of people currently swimming across it.

Your last paragraph is pretty hyperbolic as I'm sure you'd admit. I don't think that's anyone's goal, by 2020 or any other time, and it shouldn't be.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Nope, all synchronization decisions should be based on commute minutes saved. No value should be placed on the type of waiting because one form of transportation is not better than another.

There should be some consideration taken for the future cmmute minutes saved based on the ideal % of drivers, cyclists and cars. So if by changing the timing there would be more walkers then consider it. But no way should one guy in the cold outweigh 6 people in cars. Instead the guy walking should buy a touque.

Waiting in a car is objectively better than waiting outside. This is a city that gets cold weather advisories - "buy a toque" isn't good enough.

In fact, Bunk's chart says that pedestrians should be subject to low delays, whereas vehicles should be accommodated for average/high delays on urban boulevards and neighbourhood boulevards. Yet on 5th Street (the North-South route on which I have the most experience with), light synchronization priorities minimizing vehicle delays over pedestrian delays.

[killer_carlson]

I find it hard to believe the Mayor heard "more bike lanes please" or "more bike lanes downtown please" at the majority of doors during the last election.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I find it hard to believe the Mayor heard "more bike lanes please" or "more bike lanes downtown please" at the majority of doors during the last election.

I suppose that's the difference between a leader and a populist.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by SebC

I suppose that's the difference between a leader and a populist.

Leader in what? Demonizing car owners or flattering cyclist?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Leader in what? Demonizing car owners or flattering cyclist?

He does not demonize car owners in any way, shape or form.

One of his signature projects first term was a major road project - the Airport Tunnel. He's supported funding for major interchange projects like Glenmore/Ogden, Macleod/162nd and Bowfort Road. He worked to do what was necessary from the City's side to help get the SW Ring Road deal finally done. He's fought for and funded additional dollars specifically for roads optimization and snow clearing (50% increase).

Supporting projects for other modes like pedestrians, cycling and transit does not equate to demonizing cars, it's creating a transportation system that works better for everyone.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Bunk

He does not demonize car owners in any way, shape or form.

One of his signature projects first term was a major road project - the Airport Tunnel. He's supported funding for major interchange projects like Glenmore/Ogden, Macleod/162nd and Bowfort Road. He worked to do what was necessary from the City's side to help get the SW Ring Road deal finally done. He's fought for and funded additional dollars specifically for roads optimization and snow clearing (50% increase).

Supporting projects for other modes like pedestrians, cycling and transit does not equate to demonizing cars, it's creating a transportation system that works better for everyone.

Well said. I dislike most cyclists, like many others, but one thing I don't understand from most anti-cycist people is the hate for bike lanes. How is getting them out of car lanes a bad thing? Seems like a win-win to me.