Traffic delays up to 20% alongside downtown cycle lanes, city predicts

[gasman]

Originally Posted by #-3

Numbers are a funny thing, there are probably allot of factors that contribute to that 93%, it's possible the laws are too skewed in the cyclists direction, or the volume of cars makes them more likely to cause an accident. But I would suggest the Average car is about 20x the size of the average bike therefore 20x easier to see and anticipate.

I'm not saying it is OK to be unaware of your surroundings when cycling or driving, but you are probably 20x more likely to be unaware of a bicycle than you are to be unaware of a car. Which is likely what causes most of these accidents.

Either that or people who drive cars are just ignorant A-holes who enjoy running yuppie cyclists down Grand theft Auto Style.

You are right in that what causes most of these accidents is the person in the vehicle are unaware of bicyclists, but they are also unaware, or uncaring as to how their actions impact others.
Last year I was cycling on a residential road that was a designated bike route. A minivan approached me from the rear, pulled wide to pass me on the left, and immediately hooked right in front of me to turn right, the result was that I ran into her bumper and was extremely lucky I wasn't seriously injured or killed. The drivers response, a middle finger through the back window. This woman was "aware" that I was there, as evidenced by her wide left turn, but she simply wasn't smart enough, or aware enough to realize that there wasnt enough room to pass me before her turn.

To suggest that rules are skewed towards cyclists... they follow the same rules of the road as a car so I don't really get that. if 93% of the time the car was at fault, that means that 93% of the time the car broke the rules, not the cyclist, I don't see how you read that stat any other way. Just because there are more cars on the road than bikes shouldn't matter, if you aren't able to drive a car without hitting someone, then you aren't fit to drive.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by gasman

You are right in that what causes most of these accidents is the person in the vehicle are unaware of bicyclists, but they are also unaware, or uncaring as to how their actions impact others.
Last year I was cycling on a residential road that was a designated bike route. A minivan approached me from the rear, pulled wide to pass me on the left, and immediately hooked right in front of me to turn right, the result was that I ran into her bumper and was extremely lucky I wasn't seriously injured or killed. The drivers response, a middle finger through the back window. This woman was "aware" that I was there, as evidenced by her wide left turn, but she simply wasn't smart enough, or aware enough to realize that there wasnt enough room to pass me before her turn.

To suggest that rules are skewed towards cyclists... they follow the same rules of the road as a car so I don't really get that. if 93% of the time the car was at fault, that means that 93% of the time the car broke the rules, not the cyclist, I don't see how you read that stat any other way. Just because there are more cars on the road than bikes shouldn't matter, if you aren't able to drive a car without hitting someone, then you aren't fit to drive.

I don't disagree, I was just saying maybe an unattentive driver has 5% chance of noticing a cyclist, while an unattentive cyclist has 95% chance of noticing a car. because a car is really that much bigger and harder to miss.

unattentive commuters in general are the problem. But it might explain the heavy leaning towards motor vehicles being the ones at fault. When people are breaking the rules they are not trying to get in accident, they get in accidents because they are not aware of what is happening around them.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rohara66

And it removes a lot of street parking.

Drove 12th this morning and I would be pissed if I lived on 12th ave. Half the street parking/loading/stopping area is gone. And holy crap the lanes are zig zagging all over the place. Can't wait to see how many cars get side swiped.

Are you sure?

Again, I drove it yesterday and in some parts where the concrete barriers are up, parking is once again allowed at the concrete barrier, with the 2 lanes in the middle + the right side lane. It's not completely done yet though. There are some parts where you still can't park on the bike lane barrier.

FlamesKickAss might be right though, not sure whether the extra lane is lost during rush hour.

Either way, I'm really excited for these bike lanes. I'm one of the cyclists that took polak's advice for cyclists ("if you're scared of riding on the road, then don't ride at all."), and now I hope to get back into it a bit more. Get some more experience/skills in a slightly safer environment than before.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Russic

I count myself among those that would like to bike downtown but would never do it without a bike lane. My office is situated directly on 12th, and we've debated just getting an office bike to leave here for when we need to get further into the core.

Get an office motorbike instead!

Seriously though there are ways to bike from our community and I've done it. Its a long haul, but there are bike routes (not a dedicated track, but quiet roads and pathways). Its pretty good. Not amazing, but odds of anyone building something on that scale are somewhere between slim and none I would say.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Firebot

That said, the 5th St debacle is an embarrasment to the city. There is a 3-4 block traffic jam, in the morning right now because of the lane reductions and the bottleneck that is now the 12th Ave left turn. Yesterday, 5th st was not moving at all, with people honking like no tomorrow. This type of traffic jam blocks cars in the middle of intersections who are impatient, blocking other streets, while pedestrians are stuck weaving between cars and hope not to get hit by cars. It's a total gong show.

I could bike to work, but when my walk is less than 10 minutes, it's pointless for me. It benefits a very small number of people for 5 months of a year, nothing more.

Yeah, after another couple days with the 5 st battle, it's going to be a real problem when there's any sort of traffic, not that of a "3 day before the long weekend" reduction. It's a major route out of downtown, the city building it 4 lanes wide at its peak, no matter how much making it a two-wayer past 17th meant to change that perception. From my office, can see it backs up to 7th Ave yesterday. And now there's one freeflowing lane past 12 Ave if there are cars needing to turn left on 12th.

Adding on to previous complaints, with buses headed south, and then turning on 12th east is going to be another issue. Part of the reason for the dual turn in the first place was the bus (the #3, a major north/south route), since there is a bus stop right away on the south part of 12th. Now, only a single turn lane for all cars wanting to go east/a different way south other than 5th, in the same lane as one of the two that go south, including buses.

There's a lot of foot traffic too going south, so everyone turning has to wait for that (though I hope they can sync pedestrain and bike lanes) So it goes down from 2 lane to 1 (and essentially 4 to 1 with the new bike lane) as 1 of the 2 lanes will have cars waiting to turn left...and even if not stopped to turn, people turning left will slow which slows down the cars wishing to go straight and the cars back up. Bottom line; there will be 1 freeflowing lane at 12th avenue, when there's 3 lanes (used to be 4) that feed it from basically as far back as 4th avenue.

Finally, they'll be no turns from this single lane probably on red, because either n/s bikes on 5th or e/w bikes on 12th will have a green light, nevermind its now harder to see west down 12th to see if you can turn on red with the bike lanes taking up the near lane on 12th, and youre not able to poke your nose out... and all this is assuming you're first at the light in this lane in the first place.

As said, that's going to be a big mess sooner than later, backing traffic up into the core. It also will back traffic up on 10th, as many exit the core on 1st, then take 10th to go e/w or to get to 5th to go south or west. 10th is now a single lane with the building construction, so that backs up to 2nd st sometimes since only one lane can turn onto 5th the way it is now(ie not lane reduced). Of course, when winter comes and there's 20% more cars on the road. Alternate ways out of the core is getting more jammed all day, not just rush hour...8th, 1st, Macleod...already fully utilized but will gain more traffic...and all those are 2 lanes, at best (parking is allowed on those streets before rush hour, making them 1 lane).

This is a deterrent for those who live within 5km of downtown to think about cycling....but past that, if some of the most expensive daily downtown parking in North America isn't going to slow down the number of cars coming downtown, this isn't either, its just causing everyone involved more logistical problems.

Giving people a 5 month a year bike lane which affects a lot more people 12 months of the year on a daily basis, is a poor idea on that particular route.

Instead of just complaining, may as well give some solutions;

Even somehow routing bikes to 6th or 7th St after 10th Ave, both of which carry though all the way to 17th, would've been a more sensible idea to reduce the bottleneck that basically is caused by the 12 Ave intersection.

Or something even more radical? Such as putting these bike lanes on 2nd street, not 5th. Currently 2nd goes all the way through to the river north from 9th Ave. Create a bike pathway somehow through/around (and over the train tracks) the city owned parkade on 2nd, and connect to 2nd street on the south side, which also goes all the way through to the Elbow River at 27th avenue. 2nd st south was already converted to two ways, as to be more bike friendly, and is not a major car route out of downtown because it does not connect out of the core. It's more suited to bike traffic as a result, and its impact of vehicle traffic is significantly less than 5th St with no worries about going from 4 to 2 (1 freeflowing) lanes, or major turns which cause bottlenecks blocks behind it for blocks and blocks.

[Bunk]

5th will be slow while that building has the right curb lane closed, once it reopens it'll function just fine with three lanes like it did a couple weeks ago. Temporary pain.

If people want to see the designs, parking configurations, see here:

12th Ave
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...12ave-maps.pdf

8th Ave
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...-8ave-maps.pdf

9th Ave connector
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...-9ave-maps.pdf

5th Street
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...k-5st-maps.pdf

[Fuzz]

There is also a reason it is a trial. I'm not surprised if they don't get everything right on paper, it may take a few months to sort out the kinks. If the turns work like they do on 7th st, bikes and pedestrians only have a green light for half the light cycle, the rest is for the turn lane for free flow.

[calumniate]

It is kind of a shame that the construction on 7th has closed down a lane at the same time they introduce this bikeway. Seems like it will be closed for a good long while as well..

The fact they have the whole sidewalk closed forces more pedestrians to the east side to get to the train, making it even worse for people trying to turn left. Not good all around.. ah well

[tete]

Darn it all, I just realized that the 12th Ave bike lanes eliminate our great parking spots for Flames games.

It'll be interesting to see how it all goes - I live in Betline and while I don't bike, it is nice to see more non-vehicle commuter lanes. As a pedestrian, I can attest that there are many drivers who totally ignore stop signs - particularly right-hand turns, so I can only imagine how many close calls bikes have with vehicles.

[secol]

Originally Posted by gasman

You are right in that what causes most of these accidents is the person in the vehicle are unaware of bicyclists, but they are also unaware, or uncaring as to how their actions impact others.
Last year I was cycling on a residential road that was a designated bike route. A minivan approached me from the rear, pulled wide to pass me on the left, and immediately hooked right in front of me to turn right, the result was that I ran into her bumper and was extremely lucky I wasn't seriously injured or killed. The drivers response, a middle finger through the back window. This woman was "aware" that I was there, as evidenced by her wide left turn, but she simply wasn't smart enough, or aware enough to realize that there wasnt enough room to pass me before her turn.

To suggest that rules are skewed towards cyclists... they follow the same rules of the road as a car so I don't really get that. if 93% of the time the car was at fault, that means that 93% of the time the car broke the rules, not the cyclist, I don't see how you read that stat any other way. Just because there are more cars on the road than bikes shouldn't matter, if you aren't able to drive a car without hitting someone, then you aren't fit to drive.

i'd say a fair number of bicyclists don't follow the rules of the road as a car. they basically switch between following rules as a pedestrian and a vehicle depending on what suits them.
just the other day i watched a bicyclist go down 6th ave as a vehicle until cars were backed up at a red light. he then proceeded to weave his way to the front. others like biking as a vehicle until cars are backed up, then they jump the curb to be a pedestrian to skip to the front before rejoining the road.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by secol

i'd say a fair number of bicyclists don't follow the rules of the road as a car. they basically switch between following rules as a pedestrian and a vehicle depending on what suits them.
just the other day i watched a bicyclist go down 6th ave as a vehicle until cars were backed up at a red light. he then proceeded to weave his way to the front. others like biking as a vehicle until cars are backed up, then they jump the curb to be a pedestrian to skip to the front before rejoining the road.

That's pretty much one of the examples i was going bring up, where bikes can get away with stuff that cars can't, that could probably be considered risky behaviour. But I didn't really want to get into that.

I just think if you suck and commuting it's allot easier to hit a bike than a car, because it's allot easier to see a car.

[jammies]

I live just off 5th St. and walked north along it last night. The bike lane was empty but a guy on a bike was going south in the traffic lane. Then another guy overtook me on the sidewalk. I turn down 12th, the bike lane is empty again, a lady on a bike is on the sidewalk.

Good job, cyclists.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by jammies

I live just off 5th St. and walked north along it last night. The bike lane was empty but a guy on a bike was going south in the traffic lane. Then another guy overtook me on the sidewalk. I turn down 12th, the bike lane is empty again, a lady on a bike is on the sidewalk.

Good job, cyclists.

The bike lanes haven't opened yet. Construction hasn't finished.

[Ahuch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Again, it's a benefit for residents, not visitors.

The biggest issue with living in the Beltline is that it's actually too big to get around, and there's no real great transportation option for locals. If you live in the west end, walking to the a place like the Saddledome or Mission can take a good 45-60 minutes. And driving 10-15 blocks always felt kind of stupid.

It needs more alternate ways of getting around. In the end, I really wish we had a circle-route streetcar in the inner city, but adding bike lanes is a quick and cheap alternative as well. Al these condo towers means more and more residents are moving into these areas, and they need options in terms of getting around.

But yes, it's going to be a bigger pain in the dick to park. Which is why implementing more non-car solutions is better for everyone in the long-term. And I say that as a full-on car guy.

Something like a streetcar would make way too much sense for this city. Bike lanes might help inner city residents, but they do nothing for the rest of the city. Improving transit helps residents & visitors alike.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by secol

i'd say a fair number of bicyclists don't follow the rules of the road as a car. they basically switch between following rules as a pedestrian and a vehicle depending on what suits them.
just the other day i watched a bicyclist go down 6th ave as a vehicle until cars were backed up at a red light. he then proceeded to weave his way to the front. others like biking as a vehicle until cars are backed up, then they jump the curb to be a pedestrian to skip to the front before rejoining the road.

Whe fact that a fair number of bicyclists don't follow the rules is a non point, the same can be said about people driving in cars. They speed, run stop signs, turn when it isn't safe to do so, etc.

I am all for cyclist being held accountable for breaking the rules, and sometimes they are, albeit not very often due to difficulty in enforcement.

I guess what I am saying is that just because you witness bicyclists breaking the law, and essentially putting themselves at risk, it doesent somehow exonerate the driver that is texting or not paying attention and drifts into a cyclist that is stopped at a red light, or cycling in the shoulder.

There are rules in the road, and drivers and cyclists are both responsible to follow the same set, if you break the rules that is on the person at fault and they need to own that, not blame the other guy and whine that the rules are tilted in the others favour.

[Fuzz]

I've noticed that cyclist rule compliance has increased a lot on the cycle track. Before it was there I saw a lot of light running, blowing through stop signs. There are still lots of dumb asses, but I think the effect of having lots of cyclists following the rules makes it more likely to follow suit. So you may see an improvement.

As for the cycle tracks only helping inner city residents, that's not true in the same way roads through there are not only for inner city residents. Lots of cyclists commute to the core, but have no way to traverse the areas in between.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Bunk

5th will be slow while that building has the right curb lane closed, once it reopens it'll function just fine with three lanes like it did a couple weeks ago. Temporary pain.

Perhaps the city should have waited until the construction was done before disrupting traffic?

[Bigtime]

Or perhaps the city should make it so developers can't take a lane away for construction? Lots of ways to do that and they seem to work all around the world.

[secol]

Originally Posted by gasman

Whe fact that a fair number of bicyclists don't follow the rules is a non point, the same can be said about people driving in cars. They speed, run stop signs, turn when it isn't safe to do so, etc.

I am all for cyclist being held accountable for breaking the rules, and sometimes they are, albeit not very often due to difficulty in enforcement.

I guess what I am saying is that just because you witness bicyclists breaking the law, and essentially putting themselves at risk, it doesent somehow exonerate the driver that is texting or not paying attention and drifts into a cyclist that is stopped at a red light, or cycling in the shoulder.

There are rules in the road, and drivers and cyclists are both responsible to follow the same set, if you break the rules that is on the person at fault and they need to own that, not blame the other guy and whine that the rules are tilted in the others favour.

you're totally right. obviously there are less cyclists than drivers, but i have yet to see a cyclist get held accountable for breaking the law.

on a side note, is 7 street sw supposed to be a pilot program? i saw them installing permanent curbs and was kind of scratching my head.....

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Or perhaps the city should make it so developers can't take a lane away for construction? Lots of ways to do that and they seem to work all around the world.

Naw, that makes too much sense