Council supports three new separated bike lanes downtown

[Rathji]

I am in the who cares if they make bike lanes camp.

I would ride a bike to work if it didn't involve so much effort. Seriously, if I wanted to exercise, I would take the boxes and the laundry off the elliptical in the basement, and we all know that isn't happening.

If I could ride my bike to work without putting in any physical effort, I would be all over that stuff. I would even show up at all these meetings with giant signs and nothing but body paint and a speedo just to cheer them on.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am in the who cares if they make bike lanes camp.

I would ride a bike to work if it didn't involve so much effort. Seriously, if I wanted to exercise, I would take the boxes and the laundry off the elliptical in the basement, and we all know that isn't happening.

If I could ride my bike to work without putting in any physical effort, I would be all over that stuff. I would even show up at all these meetings with giant signs and nothing but body paint and a speedo just to cheer them on.

You can get an e-bike or a bike with a little gas powered generator. You wouldn't have to do any work on those.

[habernac]

love that this went through. Kudos to table5, a car guy, in supporting this as well. Hope to see more of my two wheeled brethren out there.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by billybob123

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

Or as rational people see it

1) creates traffic infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of roads
2) takes cars off of the road with a minimal disruption to traffic capacity

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

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.

Thanks for making my point. Now add the rest of Calgary to the other side thats says because we have cycle infrastructure we should only be on it now and not the roads. It was better status quo with no cycle infrastructure, there was a lot less moaning from both sides.

[calgarygeologist]

Out of curiosity, are there still speed limits on the pathway along the Bow River? I recall in the past seeing either 20 or 30km/h (can't remember which one) signs along the path but I haven't seen them in a long time. I even recall the city was doing "speed traps" at some point along the pathways.

The city should look at adding a bike lane along the single lane of Bow Trail between Pumphouse Road and 9th street. That way the cyclists could cruise in and out of downtown as fast as they want without having to deal with pedestrians, runners and other slower traffic along the pathway. The worst area on that pathway is right around 14th street especially that blind corner just east of 14th street. Things get pretty crazy in that area during the rushes.

[Addick]

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.

This is a very common problem as even some of our busiest pieces of transportation infrastructure (e.g. The CTrain, Deerfoot, and Ring Road) have periods on a daily basis where they are not being fully utilized. As such, it comes down to a basic SWOT analysis.

In the case of cycle lanes, the proof is amassing that the immediate benefits make it worthy and they provide an excellent opportunity to help solve our transportation challenges as a cycling network and culture develops.

Also, despite the fact that it might not be as well patronized during the winter months, it provides a valuable alternative that no other modes are offering to provide at a reasonable cost. Something does not have to available all the time in order to be a worthwhile asset. At their cost to build, correctly-located cycle lanes and wisely built cycle networks are valuable and cost-efficient assets for transportation networks small and large.

[Flamenspiel]

Ok, i don't really bike to work but I think in principle its a good idea if they keep the costs down. What do they do with the lanes in the winter? Is it a seasonal thing only?

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Ok, i don't really bike to work but I think in principle its a good idea if they keep the costs down. What do they do with the lanes in the winter? Is it a seasonal thing only?

In the winter they spent $300k to clean just the 7th st track. Hopefully they have a better strategy for next year, because that is an insanely high price.

Originally Posted by Muta

The more cyclists on the road, and the less cars, the better. This is a long-term investment and it will pay dividends down the road, IMO. We should be getting greener, and this is a serious commitment to that objective from the City.

Pro or con cycle track, I think everyone can agree that this is not a serious commitment to anything. It's a pilot for something they were originally going through with anyway, while removing one of the most important bits (1st SE).

Wake me up when they double down on transit. Nothing else will make a difference worth mentioning.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Pro or con cycle track, I think everyone can agree that this is not a serious commitment to anything. It's a pilot for something they were originally going through with anyway, while removing one of the most important bits (1st SE).

Wake me up when they double down on transit. Nothing else will make a difference worth mentioning.

Actually, it is a serious commitment. It's the beginning of a commitment to creating greener infrastructure and healthier living. This is the perfect program to start. They may not be huge steps, but they're steps, and ones in the right direction.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

In the winter they spent $300k to clean just the 7th st track. Hopefully they have a better strategy for next year, because that is an insanely high price.

I listened to a part of the web stream when it was being debated a week (or two?) ago, and this came up. I'm sure that Bunk or Frink or someone will correct me, but from what I recall, the upkeep of that segment was included in the contract to build it. In the future, snow removal will be done by existing city workers at a substantial savings. Or something to that effect.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

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.

This just makes way too much sense. The underpass is nice and wide there, and although not as central as 1st Street SE, it would be a reasonable N/S option to get cyclists past the CPR tracks and would have way less impact on traffic. It connects nicely with the Bow River pathway to the North as well.

I suppose that there's the small problem of the Stampede Grounds in the way. Is that area ever fully gated off after hours? Or would it be a viable route for bikes (with the exception of Stampede week, of course)? I'm not sure that additional infrastructure would even be necessary through there as it is essentially an intermittently-used almost-road through a parking lot.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The bike licencing thing idea makes some sense until you do a little research and realize that it has been tried in innumerable places and has been found to be impractical and unworkable in nearly every case, if not all.

The "make cyclists get insurance because automobiles have to" argument is flimsy as well. The primary reason you have to get insurance to drive a car is because of their massive capacity to kill people and do very significant property damage. This risk is exponentially less with bicycles.

stampsx2: "Made up number to push forward an agenda." Is this a specific problem you think exists?

What are the challenges with bike licensing in other cities? Can you give me a few specific examples that you're thinking of where it has failed. I could see if i could find one on my own but i'm interested in the ones that have changed your opinion on licensing.

I think we can agree that your argument "the risk is exponentially less with bicycles" is flimsy. Licensing bikes for safety is only part of the reason for licensing, just like it is for vehicles. You obviously agree that cyclists should follow the rules of the road don't you?

Have you ever sat and watched how many cyclists go by on the new 7th street cycle lane. I have, and i counted on one hand how many went by at 11am -noon. As much as i'm downtown, i haven't had to yield once to an oncoming cyclist when turning off of the street ever since the cycle lane was put in last year. Granted, it may be used more during rush hour, somehow i doubt it.

Do you think that if the current usage of the 7th street cycle lane was given to the public, that millions of dollars would have been spent on it? I know you will probably respond with how heavily it's actually used, which only supports pushing forward an agenda. All it takes is someone to spend a sunny week on the side of that street to get an idea. If you have actual ridership numbers i would be very interested to see them.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Muta

Actually, it is a serious commitment. It's the beginning of a commitment to creating greener infrastructure and healthier living. This is the perfect program to start. They may not be huge steps, but they're steps, and ones in the right direction.

Well, your definition of "serious commitment" and mine widely differ. When a plan goes from something you are definitely going to do to a pilot project with compromises, you aren't seriously committing to anything.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Well, your definition of "serious commitment" and mine widely differ. When a plan goes from something you are definitely going to do to a pilot project with compromises, you aren't seriously committing to anything.

Agreed. To me, a commitment includes taking a risk, no matter how much unknown; you've taken the steps that involve action, which is more than what many projects such as these usually get.

[Bigtime]

The only compromise yesterday was excluding 1st St SE yes?

[Johnny199r]

I like the idea of a cycle track. It will be interesting to see if more people commute on their bikes as a result.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

This just makes way too much sense. The underpass is nice and wide there, and although not as central as 1st Street SE, it would be a reasonable N/S option to get cyclists past the CPR tracks and would have way less impact on traffic. It connects nicely with the Bow River pathway to the North as well.

I suppose that there's the small problem of the Stampede Grounds in the way. Is that area ever fully gated off after hours? Or would it be a viable route for bikes (with the exception of Stampede week, of course)? I'm not sure that additional infrastructure would even be necessary through there as it is essentially an intermittently-used almost-road through a parking lot.

On days that I bike, I ride through there. Its never an issue, save for Stampede (obviously) and then the Petroleum show. Other than those say 10 days though, its wide-open.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Go to Denmark or Holland, and see if bike-friendly cities turn everyone into an aggressive a-hole or an enviro-freak. It's not alternate transportation, it's just transportation. It doesn't have to be a statement or a thing.

I kind of had to chuckle at this; the one day walking in Amsterdam I was more afraid of crazy bikers than anything else. Be ready to bail out of the way when you hear a bell ding!

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The only compromise yesterday was excluding 1st St SE yes?

Isn't the Stephen Ave one gonna be done cheap too? IE - movable barriers instead of concrete?