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

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Wont somebody think of the parking?

What an ignorant thing to say

yes, a loss of parking will be very noticeable. 12th avenue alone has both parking lanes removed. If each block holds 20 - 24 parked cars and the bike lanes runs from 11th st to Macleod, that's about 270-310 loss of parking at any given moment.

I would hate to be a small business owner along or around 12th ave

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by secol

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.....

7th st is not part of the pilot, it was installed before and isn't going anywhere.

As for cyclists being "busted" they had a blitz at the 4 way stop at 3rd ave last year and handed out numerous failing to stop tickets, going so far as to say that you must put your foot down, not just come to a complete stop(which, frankly, is ridiculous. A track stand is a stop). They also hand out tickets all the time on the pathway.

I've watched vehicles break the law right in front of police cars and not get a ticket, so just because you haven't seen cyclists get tickets, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that they get special treatment.

There are pedestrians, cyclists and drivers that all break the law all the time. Its not the mode of transport, its that people are idiots and a-holes. I don't think one group is any worse than any other, there just seams to be a disproportionate amount of rage at cyclists.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Pizza

What an ignorant thing to say

yes, a loss of parking will be very noticeable. 12th avenue alone has both parking lanes removed. If each block holds 20 - 24 parked cars and the bike lanes runs from 11th st to Macleod, that's about 270-310 loss of parking at any given moment.

I would hate to be a small business owner along or around 12th ave

Define ignorant?

Every single study evaluating the impacts of removing street parking for a bike lane has concluded that bike lanes at worse have no impact and most studies conclude that removing parking for bike lanes has a net *benefit* to affected businesses along the route.

Cyclists frequent establishments along bike ways much more than people whizzing by in cars. Cyclists don't need parking to stop and run into a shop. The whole structure of motordom makes it inconvenient for motorists to go into local businesses which is why everyone drives out to the massive power centers and their football fields of grey parking landscapes.

So no, I'm not ignorant, I'm actually very well versed on cycling issues in cities. I suggest maybe you should start reading up.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I ride down 10th all the time and there is literally no problem there. There isn't enough traffic to cause one.

...riiiight, and my point was they should have implemented the 12 Ave SW protected bike lane on 10 Ave SW instead since there's already a 'soft' bike lane in place, 10 Ave SW isn't nearly as busy where car traffic is concerned (keeps cyclists away from heavy traffic) and doesn't bugger up traffic flow on an important east-west corridor in the downtown area.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Define ignorant?

Every single study evaluating the impacts of removing street parking for a bike lane has concluded that bike lanes at worse have no impact and most studies conclude that removing parking for bike lanes has a net *benefit* to affected businesses along the route.

Cyclists frequent establishments along bike ways much more than people whizzing by in cars. Cyclists don't need parking to stop and run into a shop. The whole structure of motordom makes it inconvenient for motorists to go into local businesses which is why everyone drives out to the massive power centers and their football fields of grey parking landscapes.

So no, I'm not ignorant, I'm actually very well versed on cycling issues in cities. I suggest maybe you should start reading up.

It might be your charming presentation.

[SebC]

Is this why 8th Ave is no parking now on the west end?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by #-3

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.

That's a fair point. It comes down to driver education and training. In countries where cycling is a common means of transportation, drivers are specifically trained how and where to look out for cyclists and how to interact with them on the road. I doubt that's the case in Alberta.

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.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There are pedestrians, cyclists and drivers that all break the law all the time. Its not the mode of transport, its that people are idiots and a-holes. I don't think one group is any worse than any other, there just seams to be a disproportionate amount of rage at cyclists.

As a long-time bicycle commuter in this city, I'd like to say that cyclists do not disproportionately break the law. However, that's not the case. In my experience, it would be generous to say half of cyclists obey the laws of the road. Most cyclists who take a lane in traffic abandon that approach as soon as they're behind a line of cars stopped at a light, and weave in between cars or on the sidewalk to get to up beside the car at the front of the line. And signalling lane changes and turns is even less common for cyclists than it is for drivers.

Even on the pathway system, most cyclists do not use a bell or give warning when they overtake another cyclist. And where the pathways split into cyclist and pedestrian segments, riders blithely ignore the no cycling signs and ride on the pedestrian segments.

Part of the reason is a selection bias. Bicycle commuters are made up mostly of unusually aggressive and confident 25-45 year old males, a demographic not notable for its adherence to rules and regulations. Hopefully that will change as bike lanes bring more considerate and law-abiding cyclists onto the road. I also think some sort of licensing system with a written test might not be a bad idea. Many cyclists are simply ignorant of their responsibilities on the pathways and road.

[driveway]

People in Calgary complaining about traffic is entertaining to people who live in Asia.

[Tinordi]

The reason traffic is a problem in Calgary is because too many people drive and do not pay the costs of using a scarce resource (road space).

Bike lanes actually are efforts to reduce congestion understanding that urban congestion issues simply cannot be alleviated without a priority to get people to use different modes of transport because there is no more space to build new roads. Even if new space magically appeared downtown for new roads, the concept of "induced demand" would kick in thus not creating any discernible impact on congestion. Induced demand means that as the convenience and travel time is improved with road capacity additions people quickly reorient travel habits to use this capacity up. In other words more roads induce more people to drive which erases any congestion improvement.

So the only way for space constrained urban cores is shifting modes or pricing the scarce commodity of roads. What would you rather?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The reason traffic is a problem in Calgary is because too many people drive and do not pay the costs of using a scarce resource (road space).

Bike lanes actually are efforts to reduce congestion understanding that urban congestion issues simply cannot be alleviated without a priority to get people to use different modes of transport because there is no more space to build new roads. Even if new space magically appeared downtown for new roads, the concept of "induced demand" would kick in thus not creating any discernible impact on congestion. Induced demand means that as the convenience and travel time is improved with road capacity additions people quickly reorient travel habits to use this capacity up. In other words more roads induce more people to drive which erases any congestion improvement.

So the only way for space constrained urban cores is shifting modes or pricing the scarce commodity of roads. What would you rather?

I was almost going to thank your post until the induced demand part. I just don't know if I believe that to be the case. Before the SE ring road opened I read an article about it, and the idea that more roads would essentially have no effect. Purely anecdotally though, the SE ring road has made a notable difference.

I do think that the cycle track and strategy as a whole should go forward. I also think that as a suburban resident the position of some suburbanites is embarrassing. I just don't buy the induced demand argument as a reason we shouldn't increase road capacity or build new ones when it appears to have favourable impact. I could be wrong of course.

[Tinordi]

Induced demand is a theory and not a fait accompli. Land use policy, densification, would be an effective counterweight to the forces of induced travel. But how often do we see land use constrained along big new roadway capacity additions? I can't think of any.

Anyway, it's accepted among scholars looking into this that induced travel effects are a certainty. What we don't know are the specifics, does it matter suburbs versus urban, do ring roads induce travel or just beltway highways, what are minimum densities to induce travel. Etc. Point is there are a lot of unknowns about induced travel. But there are two very strong knowns, absent strong mitigating factors, easing driving conditions induces more travel and that this effect accrues over time.

That would explain, in part, why you haven't seen it yet on the ring road. It takes time to build up housing developments to eat away at the free space. But who knows, maybe it isn't an impact.

Getting back to the original point though, induced travel is kind of neither here nor there for bike lanes in the downtown core at least. There is no more space to build more roads anyway.

My point is that bike lanes are traffic management strategies just as building roads are. It's a longer game, it takes years to get those marginal cyclists to leave their cars. We do know that we need to create the conditions for them to do so which is creating and safe, useful, connected network of bike ways that make it attractive to cycle.

To those moaning about bike lanes, what are you suggestions to improve traffic? Assuming Calgary's population will continue to grow, knowing that you can't really build any new feeders into down town, knowing that downtown will remain a strong hub for travel patterns, what do you do besides complain about it?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Even on the pathway system, most cyclists do not use a bell or give warning when they overtake another cyclist. And where the pathways split into cyclist and pedestrian segments, riders blithely ignore the no cycling signs and ride on the pedestrian segments.

I guess I'd also have to point out that pedestrians also use the bike lanes all the time and walk down the centre lane of the peace bridge with strollers. Pedestrians will happily ignore bell ringing, or worse, yell at you for ringing your bell and let dogs wander off leash, or on really long leashes. So I standby my comment that it's people are jerks. Do more jerks cycle, or are the jerky ones just more visible? Tough to say, but I think singling them out all the time certainly does a disservice to the reality.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Zarley

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

It isn't? Looked like it was good to go to me, although I was busy being self-righteous and self-involved instead of looking carefully. Well then... I take it all back. Bad job - jammies.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by SebC

Is this why 8th Ave is no parking now on the west end?

Noticed that today. The city has gone to town with bike lanes now.

[Frequitude]

Noticed the new 5th Ave bike lane while slowly driving along it home from work last week.

Biked to work for the first time ever today. Used said 5th Ave bike lane. Had to bob and weave onto the street a bit since it appears to technically still be closed.

Loved it. Will use again tomorrow. Sympathy for congested drivers is zero (I used to be one).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Noticed the new 5th Ave bike lane while slowly driving along it home from work last week.

Biked to work for the first time ever today. Used said 5th Ave bike lane. Had to bob and weave onto the street a bit since it appears to technically still be closed.

Loved it. Will use again tomorrow. Sympathy for congested drivers is zero (I used to be one).

Haha! Awesome! I think the official opening of the lanes is June 20th, so you may face more construction issues for awhile.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Noticed the new 5th Ave bike lane while slowly driving along it home from work last week.

Biked to work for the first time ever today. Used said 5th Ave bike lane. Had to bob and weave onto the street a bit since it appears to technically still be closed.

Loved it. Will use again tomorrow. Sympathy for congested drivers is zero (I used to be one).

You are the physical embodiment of my posts above. You used the bike lane because it was safe and generally convenient. You also removed one single occupancy vehicle from the road. In the early days the bike lanes wont really impact congestion (as drivers shift routes to create a new equilibrium) but over the longer term people changing modes should drive down congestion or at least make it so that only those with the time or means to sit in congestion do so while to rest enjoy their bike to work.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You are the physical embodiment of my posts above. You used the bike lane because it was safe and generally convenient. You also removed one single occupancy vehicle from the road. In the early days the bike lanes wont really impact congestion (as drivers shift routes to create a new equilibrium) but over the longer term people changing modes should drive down congestion or at least make it so that only those with the time or means to sit in congestion do so while to rest enjoy their bike to work.

Unfortunately, I think the majority of marginal bike riders see weather as the #1 factor influencing their decision to use bikes as their primary transportation.

Unless we are willing to created heated bike tunnels, I don't think we we see much major impact upon long term modes for ~50% of the season. That's really the crux of this argument in a city like Calgary.

However, we are about to see the results of this experiment in the next few years.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Unless we are willing to created heated bike tunnels, I don't think we we see much major impact upon long term modes for ~50% of the season.

A heated bike tunnels will deprive bikers the benefit of sunshine. We should build glass dooms over the bike lanes (with infloor heating) instead.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Unfortunately, I think the majority of marginal bike riders see weather as the #1 factor influencing their decision to use bikes as their primary transportation.

Unless we are willing to created heated bike tunnels, I don't think we we see much major impact upon long term modes for ~50% of the season. That's really the crux of this argument in a city like Calgary.

However, we are about to see the results of this experiment in the next few years.

I don't really buy it.

The city does an amazing job of keeping bike routes clear most of the time, and I think most bicycle commuters will agree that rain is way worse than snow.

There are many rainy cities where bicycle travel works just fine.

I fully understand it when the bike room is really empty on a rainy day, but there is plenty of sunny and -10 in the winter, and every year there are more and more bikes in there through the winter.