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

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Dalhousie, pretty much by the train station, but going there to the path and down through Varsity is a backtrack for me so I was looking at other routes a while ago but ended up not really looking at it that hard. Any route advice?

Ya, Varsity to 53 to the river probably has the fewest car interactions, but the shorter trip would be taking Northmount to 10th street. If you go to Bike Calgary forum and ask there I know there are several who commute from the are you are in and could give you better guidance.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Addick

When going over the numbers I'm usually pleasantly surprised with the amount of Viking Biking (i.e. Winter Cycling). One of the things you have to consider is that cycling in the winter is not a passive activity like driving and due the constant activity the cyclist will generate heat.

I'm not sure what work you complete outside but the base I'm using is walking to the train station in winter. On most days in winter, I can break a sweat if I'm walking briskly and wearing appropriate attire. When I start to consider this, cycling doesn't look as out of the question.




Aside from the Subway Soccer Centre, we don't tend to build these pitches in the middle of industrial areas either.




Cycle lanes try to accommodate these very people. When you take a look at the surveys, there are loads of people who would be open to cycling but are fearful of mixing with vehicular traffic. Cycle lanes are not about accommodating the Spandex Brigade but rather about supplying the aforementioned hidden demand.

You are not understanding what I am saying, I am not talking about the supposed fantasy riders the bike crowd says exists that are all apparently pining away for these bike lanes... I am saying when you are talking about percentages, its a mistake to expect that the entire population is capable or has the flexibility of lifestyle to use a bike, so to say its 4.whatever of the population, that is not true, its 4.whatever of the people that have the time, ability, type of job , lack of outside commitments that are truly countable as possible cyclists.

[Fuzz]

Really?
Time-it is usually often quicker than transit or driving.
Ability-a small portion of the population is disabled and can't ride a bike.
type of job- Most people working in an office downtown can manage it
lack of outside commitments-eh? Are there that many people who drop kids off or something else on the way to work?

[Ahuch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Really?
Time-it is usually often quicker than transit or driving.
Ability-a small portion of the population is disabled and can't ride a bike.
type of job- Most people working in an office downtown can manage it
lack of outside commitments-eh? Are there that many people who drop kids off or something else on the way to work?

Are you serious? Surely you don't think everyone lives inner city.

Time - Driving downtown takes me about 30 minutes without an accident. Last time I took transit was about 18 months ago, but it was about 50 minutes if I drove to the train station, or 75 minutes if I take the bus to the train. Cycling would probably be 60-90 minutes on a good day?

Ability - I can bike.

Type of job - Sure, I guess I could bike to work. We have showers, but who the hell wants to shower at the office? I'd have to change clothes. There's a waiting list for bike parking in my building but it's several years less than the vehicle parking wait list.

Lack of outside commitments - I'm single so kids aren't an issue, but I play sports in the summers. Location varies but it's all over the damn city, often in random school fields. Not doable unless you drive.

[Bunk]

The target market for the cycle tracks if I recall correctly (the catchment so to speak) is within 7km of downtown - that's where the vast, vast majority come from.

[PIGL]

I've been watching this whole debate with interest as I do bike in to downtown during the late Spring, Summer and early Fall months from the West (basically Aspen). I don't and won't ride in during the winter months, not because it's too cold but just not worth the wipeout risk. A few years ago I started to bike and then when the West CTrain was finished, I gave up my downtown parking all together and either bike or CTrain to work every day. It's good for me. Cheaper, healthier and the exercise makes me more productive at work. Good for my carbon footprint, I guess too. But that's just me - I wouldn't insist on anyone else doing what I do.

Even being someone who does bike to work though, I cannot for the life of me understand why the City would be spending 10s of millions of dollars on these cycle tracks. I use the one on 7th street only because it's there, but if it wasn't there, I'd still bike in. Before it was there, I didn't find it difficult at all to get from the bike path to Bankers Hall. Drivers are courteous and careful and I never felt even remotely in danger. I think this is a TOTAL and COMPLETE waste of money, especially when most people won't likely bike year round. Funds would be better spent trying to find parking solutions at the CTrain stations. Many, many more people would leave their cars and take the CTrain if they could only have access to predictable parking at the train stations.

Just my view as someone who might be assumed to want to see more cycle tracks.

[Fuzz]

PIGL - Consider yourself lucky never having an incident on 7th. I almost got ran over and then, because I had the nerve to have my hand smack the guys car as I dodged him had the pleasure of him getting out of his car, kicking my bike like a petulant 12 year old, then lunging at me. Fortunately people were around, but none of the situation was my fault. I have felt MUCH safer riding since the cycle track.

I'm sure there are many others that have had incidents in traffic that feel separating cars and bikes is a good way to go.

It's also not "tens of millions", its under $10 million.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Really?
Time-it is usually often quicker than transit or driving.
Ability-a small portion of the population is disabled and can't ride a bike.
type of job- Most people working in an office downtown can manage it
lack of outside commitments-eh? Are there that many people who drop kids off or something else on the way to work?

Really. There is a large portion of the population that live far out in the burbs (most likely a function of cost of homes). There is also a sizeable portion of the population that have kids, which may include commitments of dropping them off at daycare and picking them up for extracurricular activities. Those folks (like me) simply cannot bike to work. Nothing to do with physical impairment. Do you really think the car commuters are doing so because they are lazy?

[OMG!WTF!]

bikecalgary.ca says the cost is 12.2 million over three years plus a million five a year to maintain.

This is an article from the Vancouver sun titled "Jury Still Out on Downtown Bike Lanes...

Talk to some of the merchants who remain along the Hornby lane, who vociferously complained about lack of consultation and who feared a loss of on-street parking would kill their businesses, and they will still tell you that they suffer from the impacts.......the Vancouver Economic Commission estimated 150 businesses would likely lose upwards of $2.4 million in the first year alone.

So I guess all the studies don't say the same thing. But what really bugs me is, no one is going to compensate the existing businesses that do end up losing money and they surely will. That's seriously unfair.

If these lanes cause a 20% incease in drive times (and I'm sure they will) it is actually going to increase our over all carbon foot print by a significant amount.

All the bike lanes in the world aren't going to make people ride in the winter.

Two cyclists I talked to today said they're still just going to cycle down the river paths, then cut straight to their office on 11th ave as usual because they don't want to breathe in any more exhaust than they have to. "Why would you bike down 12 ave when you could spin down the river, watch all the cute baby geese and not suck on tail pipes the whole way?"

I tried to be cool with this, 40k bikers deserve some consideration. But it's looking more like an entirely stupid idea.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by PIGL

I've been watching this whole debate with interest as I do bike in to downtown during the late Spring, Summer and early Fall months from the West (basically Aspen). I don't and won't ride in during the winter months, not because it's too cold but just not worth the wipeout risk. A few years ago I started to bike and then when the West CTrain was finished, I gave up my downtown parking all together and either bike or CTrain to work every day. It's good for me. Cheaper, healthier and the exercise makes me more productive at work. Good for my carbon footprint, I guess too. But that's just me - I wouldn't insist on anyone else doing what I do.

Even being someone who does bike to work though, I cannot for the life of me understand why the City would be spending 10s of millions of dollars on these cycle tracks. I use the one on 7th street only because it's there, but if it wasn't there, I'd still bike in. Before it was there, I didn't find it difficult at all to get from the bike path to Bankers Hall. Drivers are courteous and careful and I never felt even remotely in danger. I think this is a TOTAL and COMPLETE waste of money, especially when most people won't likely bike year round. Funds would be better spent trying to find parking solutions at the CTrain stations. Many, many more people would leave their cars and take the CTrain if they could only have access to predictable parking at the train stations.

Just my view as someone who might be assumed to want to see more cycle tracks.

Not everything is about you.

The majority of people do not feel as safe or as confident mixed with traffic as you (including me). It may be a waste for you, but you're not necessarily who this is for. In every city these kinds of facilities are put in, they attract a new demographic of people to cycle that didn't previously - numbers of female riders in particular rise dramatically (today it's heavily skewed male and middle-aged).

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/1...ng-gender-gap/

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Really. There is a large portion of the population that live far out in the burbs (most likely a function of cost of homes). There is also a sizeable portion of the population that have kids, which may include commitments of dropping them off at daycare and picking them up for extracurricular activities. Those folks (like me) simply cannot bike to work. Nothing to do with physical impairment. Do you really think the car commuters are doing so because they are lazy?

Naw, I don't think you're lazy.

Just the government has chosen to disincentivize your lifestyle for the first time in decades, like it has done to cyclists and pedestrians for all that time.

Take your 20% delay and stop whining.

[PIGL]

Bunk - thanks for your reply. I don't think everything is about me - sorry if it came across that way. Thanks for the article on the gender side of this. I hadn't appreciated that element of it. I understand that the tracks might not be for people like me but I just don't think the cost/benefit of this makes much sense for the reasons being expressed in this forum and because there simply won't be enough people using the cycle tracks in this city in this climate to justify the expense (which, when you add up the cost of the Pilot and the ongoing capital and maintenance costs will be tens of millions of dollars, which doesn't include the potential costs associated with loss of business next to the Tracks or those associated with increased traffic volume). This is an inefficient use of taxpayer money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tinordi]

Do you have any idea what a commensurate expenditure would be per vehicle on maintain the vehicle roadway system?

You want to talk waste of tax dollars?

[CliffFletcher]

There are taxpayers in this city who do not drive a motor vehicle. If anyone should be complaining about subsidizing transportation infrastructure they don't use, it's them.

[Tinordi]

Exactly, vehicle drivers are some of the most subsidized people in our society. They pay at most 50% of the total cost of the motor vehicle system.

https://www.biv.com/article/2013/7/n...elping-subsid/

But the biggest gagging point for many motorists is that they think cyclists are getting a free ride on someone else’s dime. The rude, arrogant and law-breaking attitude of some cyclists only adds to this resentment. Oddly, drivers who endanger lives by breaking the speed limit rarely provoke the same reaction.

In fact, the opposite is true.

Cyclists subsidize car drivers. Local roads and bike lanes are almost exclusively paid for by local property taxes, not fuel taxes. Yes, some city hall revenue comes from parking fees, but those fees don’t begin to cover the opportunity and maintenance costs of the 30% of the city’s land base that is used for cars, especially for “free” on-street parking. The amount of roadway in Vancouver dedicated to cars is 10 times that dedicated to bicycles, which usually park off-road. Property taxes are paid by everyone who lives in the city, whether they rent or own. Cyclists are more likely to live in the city, since they stay closer to home than motorists who come into Vancouver from all over the region. Cyclists also subsidize motorists when they live in buildings or buy groceries that cost more because of legislated off-street parking spaces they don’t use.

City police costs to patrol traffic, enforce drunk driving laws and attend to accidents are paid by cyclists and car drivers alike, even though car drivers use up vastly more of those resources than cyclists.

Then there are health-care costs, which everyone pays through provincial income taxes and medical service premiums. Cars are huge health hazards, plain and simple. Pollution from cars generates huge health-care costs – especially diesel cars like my Passat TDI. Accidents and ambulances are an obvious source of those costs, but they only account for 10% of the casualties due to traffic. Three times as many people die from the effects of emissions, and twice as many again die prematurely from lack of exercise and obesity-driven diseases related to time spent driving.

Protected green lanes reduce non-fatal cyclist road injuries by 90%, so the return on investment from bike lanes is possibly covered by that health care saving alone.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are taxpayers in this city who do not drive a motor vehicle. If anyone should be complaining about subsidizing transportation infrastructure they don't use, it's them.

You don't have to have a car to derive a benefit from the road system. If you buy anything anywhere at any time, you've used the road sysem. If you live indoors, you've used the road system. If you eat food on a regular basis you use the road system.

Some of the money used to build and maintain roads comes from cars and people who own them...gas tax, licensing/registration, parking fees etc. I'm assuming most comes from general revenue...property tax mostly, but certainly not all.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

So I guess all the studies don't say the same thing. But what really bugs me is, no one is going to compensate the existing businesses that do end up losing money and they surely will. That's seriously unfair.

Starting a business does not come with any kind of guarantees for eternaly persistent business conditions, nor does government give up its right to govern when you it gives you a business license.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Exactly, vehicle drivers are some of the most subsidized people in our society. They pay at most 50% of the total cost of the motor vehicle system.

https://www.biv.com/article/2013/7/n...elping-subsid/

Some quick numbers to debunk this:

Transit Budget: ~$425M
Roads Budge: $~260M

(http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Document...-2015-2018.pdf)

Home to Work Mode Share:

Cars: 76%
Transit: 17%
Other: 9%

(http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...itor_april.pdf)

Total Budget: $~5,400M

(http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Document...en-Summary.pdf)

For 76% of the people who get 38% of the transportation budget to be receiving any subsidy at all, never mind a 50% subsidy, they'd have to have extremely low property taxes relative to everyone else. Your article is pure spin - one cannot simply omit the property taxes that road users pay and compute a susbsidy with even approximate accuracy.

[OMG!WTF!]

Starting a business does not come with any kind of guarantees for eternaly persistent business conditions, nor does government give up its right to govern when you it gives you a business license.

So if that were universally true, does that make it a good idea to unilaterally damage businesses so people can ride bikes? Or is it a bad idea?

And, in general, you are wrong about guarantees to business conditions. Almost all businesses, certainly all retail businesses, are guaranteed many things by city bylaws, codes and conditions including parking. That's why you don't see six liqour stores piled up in the same strip mall.

Exactly, vehicle drivers are some of the most subsidized people in our society. They pay at most 50% of the total cost of the motor vehicle system.

How much of the economy is generated through roads? It's kind of ironic that people riding bikes to their jobs in downtown Calgary think they're not getting their money's worth from roads.

Also funny is that adding a paint line to an existing road....one that has already been bought and paid for, is in any way comparable to the capital expense involved in transportation budgets. Most of the actual bike lanes already exist.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by SebC

Some quick numbers to debunk this:

Transit Budget: ~$425M
Roads Budge: $~260M

There's no doubt that transit users are by far the most subsidized. I'm pretty sure this happens in every single city, and in general, is considered a very good use of tax dollars.

However, we're comparing roads to cyclists. In fact, in the context of this discussion, we're talking about capital costs between roads and cyclists.

Here's a report on what investments we're planning to do for the entire network for the next ten years:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...-final-web.pdf

Keep in mind the capital cost of the bike lanes was 11 million dollars spread over several years. Go to page 13, and keep that 11 million dollars in mind as you see how much cash is slated to go towards car projects.

Rationally, Car people should be fighting against transit users - but that's just politically incorrect isn't it?

Oh, just as an aside, in the same report, there are 30 million dollars budgeted towards pathways (ie. bike infrastructure) in the next 10 years (page 74).

[The Ditch]

I had a laugh driving to work this morning when I saw someone biking on the side walk down 6th street sw, and then on 7th street sw someone was biking on the road instead of in the bike lane slowing traffic.