Council supports three new separated bike lanes downtown

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by 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.

You mean Camrose can do something Calgary can't?

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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.

The problem being the cycle tracks force these two groups together, and they don't interact well either and the type 1's style of riding doesn't interact well with the group you are trying to attract, the women, children, seniors, families, less athletically inclined people, inexperienced cyclists, etc.
I am a type 1 cyclist and I avoid the bike paths because of mixed used, slow cyclists, and reduced speed. I can't see myself using the cycle tracks if the tracks get busier for the same reason, and type 1 is probably the largest cycling group.

[Tinordi]

Great news. Bike lanes are simply the future. There is no getting around urban congestion problems other than gradual but necessary mode shifting. You cannot build more roads anymore to alleviate congestion. The only way is to get the margins out of their cars. Improved bike infrastructure that promotes all ages and abilities should do that over the medium term.

To those bemoaning whether they're used or not. This is the long-game. Ridership almost certainly will be underwhelming the first couple of years, this is gradual behaviour change that takes up to 20 years. What's critical is to recognize the real limitations of use. That's in connectivity and the network. The more dispersed and functional the bike network becomes the more likely it will be used. The lesson is kind of the reverse of what many people would take away: "oh the bike lane isn't being used so lets not build anymore" should be more like "the bike lane isn't being used because it doesn't really work as a route, we need more bike lanes to make bike transit a viable alternative." It's basic network effect.

To those complaining about the cost there's a pretty good argument that investments in cycling infrastructure offer huge net savings to municipalities.

Look at pages 50-51 http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf

Shifting modes by 1 percentage point in a small communities of 20,000 commuting trips a day saves $645,000 under very conservative assumptions.

Total costs per km cycled are about $0.60 while for vehicles there's 6x higher at $3.74. Those are costs that are borne by all not just the vehicle operators.

Shifting 1000 miles from automobiles to bikes saves $14,300 under very conservative assumptions.

Basically, if you're a fiscal conservative there are very arguments for how you would be against infrastructure to shift modes toward more cycling. I was at a transport conference in the States and one of the speakers said that Portland's entire cycle network cost as much as one mile of 8 lane freeway in the city.

[Roughneck]

River to river access with E-W routes will be pretty important for increased ridership. 5th Street is just a horrible road to walk or bike on currently, a cycle track will solve one problem and hopefully slow the cars down a bit.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

You mean Camrose can do something Calgary can't?

If you take anything away from Bunk's post (and Frink also speaking to the subject) it should be obvious that Camrose it attempting something that will best case cover the administrative costs, and worst case they will lose money and realize it wasn't worth it.

No surprise here, but count me in the camp that is very happy this got approved. I would like to see 4th St. SE added to the network though, the underpass already has a bike lane on either side shared with the sidewalk, so why not put the lane in now on the rest of it before East Village starts taking on new residents? Make it part of the urban fabric right off the bat.

Just a few weeks back I met up with Bunk and Table 5 to watch one of the games down at Watchmans on 17th avenue. Since they are being used pretty much as a new commuter option there was not a single Car2Go between me and 17th, transit would not offer a "time respecting" option to get from Sunnyside to 17th, so I was left with driving my own car, biking, or walking.

I've ridden on the downtown roads on my bike the odd time, usually quiet Sunday mornings. So I was not comfortable attempting it in the early evening. I don't drive if I don't have too, so that left the walking option. Now it was a lovely night for a 30 minute walk, but with cycle track I get a new option that will get me down there way quicker than walking while still being able to enjoy the urban fabric. I believe that is called "induced demand" (Social Engineering LOL), and these tracks will facilitate much more of that.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by fotze

There better be cycle checkstops now. Equal rights comes equal responsibility. Great, should we expect hordes of drunken bike riders cruising through the streets when the bars let out at 2:00 am?

You can't get a DUI on a bike in Calgary (all of Alberta?)

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Traf...d-driving.aspx


Sure you could get a drunk in public or other such charge, but you could get that walking home too.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

The problem being the cycle tracks force these two groups together, and they don't interact well either and the type 1's style of riding doesn't interact well with the group you are trying to attract, the women, children, seniors, families, less athletically inclined people, inexperienced cyclists, etc.
I am a type 1 cyclist and I avoid the bike paths because of mixed used, slow cyclists, and reduced speed. I can't see myself using the cycle tracks if the tracks get busier for the same reason, and type 1 is probably the largest cycling group.

Type 1 cyclists is the largest group right now, that is exactly what this is trying to change. Getting more people to use the system and provide an alternative to having to drive. More options = better quality of life.

It will take time for all the new users to get the etiquette together but it will come and the networks will just become part of the urban fabric.

If you don't like the pathways and the network because you are a F1 racer and the country drivers get in your way, then take the road. You still have that option.

Re: Stephen Ave and the network going down that st. I think it is fine. The simple fact is that the network "works" in many other cities. People here are not used to the etiquette of the network. Ever been to Holland? You step foot onto the pathway, you get rundown. That only happens once and then you remember not to step foot on the pathway. It is kind of like touching a hot stove.

It will take time but five years from now this will just be part of life and there will be some other small issue that will be the great debate de jour.

Last point and the most important one - the "cycle network" needs a cool name. I don't have one but I bet we can come up with something.

[wireframe]

Can someone explain any logical reason to be against the cycle tracks? I know a lot of people think this is some sort of disaster but I don't understand why. And I have only heard vague 'traffic will increase and cyclists are dangerous' type of arguments.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Last point and the most important one - the "cycle network" needs a cool name. I don't have one but I bet we can come up with something.

They Cory Morgan bike network.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Can someone explain any logical reason to be against the cycle tracks? I know a lot of people think this is some sort of disaster but I don't understand why. And I have only heard vague 'traffic will increase and cyclists are dangerous' type of arguments.

I'm impartial either way, but my guess is 1) costs money and 2) takes away lane space from cars.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

They Cory Morgan bike network.

I can't stop laughing.

[Arsenal14]

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.

Watch it with your cannons! I walk down Stephen Ave as part of my commute each morning and afternoon and would rather not be hit by a cannonball - or a cyclist who is using the road as an expressway across downtown. While there are some blocks where it generally isn't busy the area around Center Street is quite busy in the summer - the various patios and food/tacky cell phone case vendors take up a lot of what space there is and there is a fair amount of pedestrian traffic.

That being said, I'm willing to give it a try and see what happens.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

If you take anything away from Bunk's post (and Frink also speaking to the subject) it should be obvious that Camrose it attempting something that will best case cover the administrative costs, and worst case they will lose money and realize it wasn't worth it.

No surprise here, but count me in the camp that is very happy this got approved. I would like to see 4th St. SE added to the network though, the underpass already has a bike lane on either side shared with the sidewalk, so why not put the lane in now on the rest of it before East Village starts taking on new residents? Make it part of the urban fabric right off the bat.

Just a few weeks back I met up with Bunk and Table 5 to watch one of the games down at Watchmans on 17th avenue. Since they are being used pretty much as a new commuter option there was not a single Car2Go between me and 17th, transit would not offer a "time respecting" option to get from Sunnyside to 17th, so I was left with driving my own car, biking, or walking.

I've ridden on the downtown roads on my bike the odd time, usually quiet Sunday mornings. So I was not comfortable attempting it in the early evening. I don't drive if I don't have too, so that left the walking option. Now it was a lovely night for a 30 minute walk, but with cycle track I get a new option that will get me down there way quicker than walking while still being able to enjoy the urban fabric. I believe that is called "induced demand" (Social Engineering LOL), and these tracks will facilitate much more of that.

Camrose has been doing it for years, on the other end of the spectrum so has Tokyo. The idea is not the failure in other parts, its the implementation of it in other locales that is.
People drinking then cycling eh, does the .05 law apply to cyclists as well since its part of the highway traffic act.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by wireframe

Can someone explain any logical reason to be against the cycle tracks? I know a lot of people think this is some sort of disaster but I don't understand why. And I have only heard vague 'traffic will increase and cyclists are dangerous' type of arguments.

I'm not against the bike lane experiment, but off the top of my head the biggest downside is that it will cost a lane that vehicles use 12 months a year, for a lane that bicycles will use 6-8 months of the year.

I'm sure there are some hardy souls who will use the lane 12 months a year, but those people are few and far between.

It is akin to building a new freeway that is only open Monday-Wednesday.

But we can't simply keep building more roads for more cars, there has to be another solution. Personally, I'd be more in favour of vastly improving Calgary Transit, but that comes with a multi-billion dollar price tag. If bike routes can help out with commute times, then I'm all for it. No way to determine that other than to try it out.

Also, I'm very glad that I no longer work downtown. My commute is now about 12 minutes (almost as close as Airdrie). I think I'll even start biking, but first I might lobby for a dedicated bike lane along Southland Dr.)

[strombad]

Why do some people feel the need to equate the requirements a driver of thousands of pounds of metal that can go well over 100km/h with the rider of a 30lbs piece of metal that can go 20km/h?

Guess what, it's different.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

I'm an inner city latte sipper who is strongly in favour of more bike lanes, but as someone who is primarily a pedestrian, I see cyclists ignoring the rules of the road far more often than motorists. I really wish that wasn't the case because cyclists aren't winning many friends and allies thanks to their unpredictable and dangerous behaviour, but sadly it's true.

[Regular_John]

It's so hard to have a conversation around this topic when it's being pegged as cars VS bikes and simple questions get ridicules answers like this:

Jaydorn: Hey #yycbike can someone refresh my memory, do red lights apply to cyclist?
Response: @jaydorn for every 1 bicycle that blows a red light I'm willing to bet there is 2-3 cars that do. Which is more dangerous?

How is that even an answer? Was my question a little loaded, yes perhaps. But because there's bad drivers in the city we can't even ask a question about how traffic laws apply to cyclist?

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm in favour rethinking out transportation in the city, and I support anything that makes sharing the roads safer for all parties. But if we're encouraging more ridership we should be able to clarify the rules and how they'll apply to the public without it seeming like we're "picking sides".

Maybe I'm just a transit rider who's considering augmenting my commute with a bike, don't assume I'm a texting Hummer driver hoping to run all bikes off the road.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Bunk

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.

Stephen Ave is already a bike lane at 7:00am.

Pedestrians in the morning commute, (of which I am one of), regularly use the middle of the road, along with tons of people crossing N/S from exiting the CTrain, and are forced to watch out for these idiots racing along the entire length of it.

Use the section of 8th ave between 3rd and 2nd St for example - the "sidewalk" section of that block is pretty much unusable on either side with how many things are in the way, so walking down the road section for that block is standard.

There is zero enforcement of the no bikes after 6:00am law, and obviously no desire to improve signage or enforce that law. Is it packed at 7 like it is at lunch? No, obviously not. But does that mean just because it isn't a zoo, cyclists should be able to use it as a bypass? Guess it does as nothing is done to fix it.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm not against the bike lane experiment, but off the top of my head the biggest downside is that it will cost a lane that vehicles use 12 months a year, for a lane that bicycles will use 6-8 months of the year.

I'm sure there are some hardy souls who will use the lane 12 months a year, but those people are few and far between.

It is akin to building a new freeway that is only open Monday-Wednesday.

But we can't simply keep building more roads for more cars, there has to be another solution. Personally, I'd be more in favour of vastly improving Calgary Transit, but that comes with a multi-billion dollar price tag. If bike routes can help out with commute times, then I'm all for it. No way to determine that other than to try it out.

Also, I'm very glad that I no longer work downtown. My commute is now about 12 minutes (almost as close as Airdrie). I think I'll even start biking, but first I might lobby for a dedicated bike lane along Southland Dr.)

Interesting point, but I'm not sure this issue has been made clear? In Montreal their bike lanes are closed from November through April

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

The problem being the cycle tracks force these two groups together, and they don't interact well either and the type 1's style of riding doesn't interact well with the group you are trying to attract, the women, children, seniors, families, less athletically inclined people, inexperienced cyclists, etc.
I am a type 1 cyclist and I avoid the bike paths because of mixed used, slow cyclists, and reduced speed. I can't see myself using the cycle tracks if the tracks get busier for the same reason, and type 1 is probably the largest cycling group.

It would be awesome if all you type 1 cyclists could take your Tour de France attitudes off the pathways and onto the streets. The pathways would be a much more pleasant place to enjoy and use.