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

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are they doing it on the streets with dedicated bike lanes? I mentioned couriers because they are the only ones I've seen do that on 7th. The vast vast majority of cyclists I see on 7th obey the law, with the exception of the 4 way stop at 3rd. That one needs work, and the cops have done ticketing blitzes there.

A sizeable amount of cyclests coming flying down 8th street instead of going one block over to 7th were the dedicated bike lane is. It's is a routine occurrence, and almost a constant in the summer months. They then cross on a red light onto 4th Avenue, and scoot across the 10th street bridge ringing their bell as they overtake pedestrians. This bridge is clearly marked "Cyclists must dismount".

We are talking one block here. This isn't some major inconvenience to them, this is them saying I'm going to do whatever I want to save 1 maybe 2 minutes. If they went one block over they can go right into the path systems and take one of the two bridges which are setup for cycling.

Frustrates me to no end, and this prevalent attitude of these people that "Well we didn't like where the lane was built so we don't use it" really gets me going. It's one block. I fully supported the 7th street bike lane, but there's no way I would support any more given the way it's being used.

To answer your question, the people using the actual dedicated bike lane generally do so respectfully and within the rules of the road. The problem is, there a considerable amount of people who refuse to use the lane they were given. Why the hell should we give them more at our own inconvenience, when they pick and chose when they are going to use it?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Having worked downtown for 7 years, I've never really understood why people insist on driving downtown to get to work. It's by far the most costly option, and on the majority of the days there is congestion on the roads in some form.

As someone who will never drive to work downtown in my lifetime, I'm curious why others do? Is it simply a choice of convenience? Is it because those who do work downtown and have customers out of the core? Is it because transit service to the far flung suburbs is spotty? Because as someone who walks to work everyday the majority of rush hour drivers seem absolutely miserable every day.

From my own experience as someone who lives in the core, but doesn't use the bike lanes, the only thing I've noticed is that the driving lanes on 12th aren't consistent from 11th St to 1st St. There are always 2 driving lanes but the lane in which cars park changes up between the left lane and the right lane. Get that straightened out and I have no complaints.

I drive to work downtown because I have to visit clients in and around the entire city through the day as part of the job. That said, I would probably drive downtown anyways for the following the reasons:

- C-Train parking: I don't mind the C-Train, but park and ride is a nightmare. This is nothing but glorified subsidized parking for parasite communities like Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks. I can't be late for a meeting because i can't find a parking spot to get on the train as early as 6:45 am.

- Bus to Train: The "loop" buses from the community take far too long, and are not frequent enough. I fully understand that the service likely matches the demand so there's nothing the city can do, but if I miss one bus, I can't wait another half an hour for the next one to get me to the station. Also, they have a tendency to just not show up sometimes. Cannot be relied upon.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure why you need a "no bike zone".

Because of this:

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

A sizeable amount of cyclests coming flying down 8th street instead of going one block over to 7th were the dedicated bike lane is. It's is a routine occurrence, and almost a constant in the summer months. They then cross on a red light onto 4th Avenue, and scoot across the 10th street bridge ringing their bell as they overtake pedestrians. This bridge is clearly marked "Cyclists must dismount".

Cyclists routinely disobey traffic signals and laws because they want to go fast and are are on a maneuverable platform that allows them much more latitude to do so and get away with it. Restricting them to a small subset of roads/paths helps control their movements, making it easier to enforce other laws upon them. Making them go slower and more carefully is a positive all by itself, just like not letting cars treat downtown streets like the Deerfoot is also a benefit.

I generally don't drive, and walk everywhere. There is simply no comparison between the percentage of cyclists that bike like morons and the percentage of cars that do the same. I can guarantee that if I walk more than 4-5 blocks along 5th street, for example, I will see at least one cyclist "stop" for a red light or flashing crosswalk by slowing down, glancing both ways then booking it. I might see one car turn left or be late on a red, but that'll be one car out of dozens and one cyclist out of 3 or 4.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Having worked downtown for 7 years, I've never really understood why people insist on driving downtown to get to work. It's by far the most costly option, and on the majority of the days there is congestion on the roads in some form.

As someone who will never drive to work downtown in my lifetime, I'm curious why others do? Is it simply a choice of convenience? Is it because those who do work downtown and have customers out of the core? Is it because transit service to the far flung suburbs is spotty? Because as someone who walks to work everyday the majority of rush hour drivers seem absolutely miserable every day.

From my own experience as someone who lives in the core, but doesn't use the bike lanes, the only thing I've noticed is that the driving lanes on 12th aren't consistent from 11th St to 1st St. There are always 2 driving lanes but the lane in which cars park changes up between the left lane and the right lane. Get that straightened out and I have no complaints.

For me it boiled down to two main reasons:
1. my employer paid for my parking DT so the cost to me was essentially zero.
2. many days I did not go directly home after work and my vehicle was the only feasible method of transportation.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jammies

Because of this:



Cyclists routinely disobey traffic signals and laws because they want to go fast and are are on a maneuverable platform that allows them much more latitude to do so and get away with it. Restricting them to a small subset of roads/paths helps control their movements, making it easier to enforce other laws upon them. Making them go slower and more carefully is a positive all by itself, just like not letting cars treat downtown streets like the Deerfoot is also a benefit.

I generally don't drive, and walk everywhere. There is simply no comparison between the percentage of cyclists that bike like morons and the percentage of cars that do the same. I can guarantee that if I walk more than 4-5 blocks along 5th street, for example, I will see at least one cyclist "stop" for a red light or flashing crosswalk by slowing down, glancing both ways then booking it. I might see one car turn left or be late on a red, but that'll be one car out of dozens and one cyclist out of 3 or 4.

Do any other cities, anywhere, ban cycling in their downtown? I don't know of any, and I don't see the justification for collective punishment. Maybe the solution is more cycling infrastructure, not less. *dawns flame suit*

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by shermanator

As someone who will never drive to work downtown in my lifetime, I'm curious why others do? Is it simply a choice of convenience? Is it because those who do work downtown and have customers out of the core? Is it because transit service to the far flung suburbs is spotty? Because as someone who walks to work everyday the majority of rush hour drivers seem absolutely miserable every day.

I worked with someone who paid to park downtown, even though it was a huge expense for her, because she has such an aversion to crowds of strangers that the idea of taking transit horrified her.

I've always assumed it's a status thing for a lot of people, especially men. There has to be a reason men aged 25-60 are dramatically under-represented on public transit.

Originally Posted by jammies

I generally don't drive, and walk everywhere. There is simply no comparison between the percentage of cyclists that bike like morons and the percentage of cars that do the same. I can guarantee that if I walk more than 4-5 blocks along 5th street, for example, I will see at least one cyclist "stop" for a red light or flashing crosswalk by slowing down, glancing both ways then booking it. I might see one car turn left or be late on a red, but that'll be one car out of dozens and one cyclist out of 3 or 4.

As a cyclist, I have to grudgingly agree with this observation. I'd guess over a third of cycle commuters routinely break the law and defy all courtesies of the road (and the pathway). Cutting corners. No signalling. Taking every advantage possible without regard for others. Maybe that's to be expected when they're drawn primarily from a population of aggressive and confident males amped up on adrenaline. While cycling is often promoted as a way to get out of the isolation of a car, in my experience a great many cycle commuters ride in a bubble of selfishness as impenetrable as anyone in a jacked up pickup with tinted windows.

[username]

Originally Posted by shermanator

As someone who will never drive to work downtown in my lifetime, I'm curious why others do?

My reasons:
- The commute from my door to my office is 20 minutes max. If I take transit, it's closer to an hour each way. That frees up an hour and half every day that I can be spending with my family.
- Transit to my home is crapy at best and the one bus only comes 3 times in the evening. Otherwise I'm stuck taking another route that takes at least twice as long.
- Transit in winter is very challenging, especially when it's snowing. Schedules are unpredictable and I hate waiting up to a half hour in cold for a late bus.
- I enjoy driving and listening to the fan on my ride in/out
- My work currently "pays" for it - 500 taxable benefit per month so it's costing me about 200.

I personally couldn't imagine going back to transit.......

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Having worked downtown for 7 years, I've never really understood why people insist on driving downtown to get to work. It's by far the most costly option, and on the majority of the days there is congestion on the roads in some form.

As someone who will never drive to work downtown in my lifetime, I'm curious why others do? Is it simply a choice of convenience? Is it because those who do work downtown and have customers out of the core? Is it because transit service to the far flung suburbs is spotty? Because as someone who walks to work everyday the majority of rush hour drivers seem absolutely miserable every day.

From my own experience as someone who lives in the core, but doesn't use the bike lanes, the only thing I've noticed is that the driving lanes on 12th aren't consistent from 11th St to 1st St. There are always 2 driving lanes but the lane in which cars park changes up between the left lane and the right lane. Get that straightened out and I have no complaints.

I wouldn't be so confident in that assessment, as things change. I used to live downtown and walked everyday. Worked perfectly, as I couldn't afford car/parking and I could go boozing after work without worry. Fast forward a few years, I moved out of the downtown core. Wanted home ownership, wasn't as interested in the night life and I took transit every day for 7-10 years. Didn't love the bus, but it did work to some extent, as I didn't have any specific commitments after work. Now, married with young children, I live even further from downtown, need to schlep kids to and from daycare/after school activities. Biking isn't workable in my current situation. Bus/Train isn't workable either. I am fortunate to have company parking and I drive. Isn't a perfect solution, but it is pretty much the only alternative for me right now.

For the record, I don't mind taking lanes from cars for bikes. Seems like a no-brainer to separate bikes and cars for safety reasons, and more bikes mean less cars. I am concerned that the climate here is not conducive for full utilization of the bike lanes and I still see cyclists on the regular roads seemingly choosing when they want to be treated as vehicles, and when they want be treated as pedestrians.

[TheAlpineOracle]

I was thinking about this conversation on my way home so I decided I'd see how many times I saw a cyclist break the law before I left downtown (which is essentially two blocks for me).

I was waiting to make a left turn onto 4th Avenue from 8th Street on my way home from work. Typical rush hour traffic. Had to wait two lights. In the process of those two lights, I counted 4 cyclists fly by on the sidewalk or weaved in and out of traffic at a standstill , shoot out into the intersection illegally, and fly up 4th Avenue.

Bike lane is one block over, there's no reason for this but their own agenda. 4 cyclists in two lights during rush hour. Think about that. it's winter. Imagine how much this is happening in the summer.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do any other cities, anywhere, ban cycling in their downtown? I don't know of any, and I don't see the justification for collective punishment. Maybe the solution is more cycling infrastructure, not less. *dawns flame suit*

I don't know if any cities have tried it, but that doesn't mean it should never be tried. Especially when I'm not talking about banning entirely, but rather confining, and further separating out the two kinds of traffic, cyclists and vehicles. It does seem rather foolish to build cycle tracks that half the cyclists don't use, thereby clogging up roads for cars with their unpredictable shenanigans.

And before someone comes in a "nanny-state" argument, regulating traffic and optimizing vehicle behaviour is both necessary and prudent. Whether it's a good idea or not doesn't depend on some fantasy about someone's right to ride a bike wherever they please being violated.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I was thinking about this conversation on my way home so I decided I'd see how many times I saw a cyclist break the law before I left downtown (which is essentially two blocks for me).

I was waiting to make a left turn onto 4th Avenue from 8th Street on my way home from work. Typical rush hour traffic. Had to wait two lights. In the process of those two lights, I counted 4 cyclists fly by on the sidewalk or weaved in and out of traffic at a standstill , shoot out into the intersection illegally, and fly up 4th Avenue.

Bike lane is one block over, there's no reason for this but their own agenda. 4 cyclists in two lights during rush hour. Think about that. it's winter. Imagine how much this is happening in the summer.

Interesting, because I was paying attention too! There were 5 of us in the cycle track, and surprisingly, everyone stopped appropriately at the 4 way. Everyone looked to be regular commuters, all males 30-40(as Cliff Fletcher put it..." primarily from a population of aggressive and confident males amped up on adrenaline."- we were not.) So perhaps it is the law abiding cyclists who are less fearless that use the cycle track, and any argument to get rid of them on the basis that other cyclists behave like a-holes isn't a sound argument at all. Collective punishment, and all that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't know if any cities have tried it, but that doesn't mean it should never be tried. Especially when I'm not talking about banning entirely, but rather confining, and further separating out the two kinds of traffic, cyclists and vehicles. It does seem rather foolish to build cycle tracks that half the cyclists don't use, thereby clogging up roads for cars with their unpredictable shenanigans.

And before someone comes in a "nanny-state" argument, regulating traffic and optimizing vehicle behaviour is both necessary and prudent. Whether it's a good idea or not doesn't depend on some fantasy about someone's right to ride a bike wherever they please being violated.

To be fair, it isn't "some fantasy" that bikes are allowed on the road, so banning them on roads would be going against their current rights, and if the intention is to stop them riding on sidewalks, rather counter productive. If the goal is just to stop them from "clogging up the roads" I'd argue this is a fairly minor issue downtown.

So I'd ask, what is the end goal here? Stop cyclists from behaving like jerks and breaking the law? Eliminating bike lanes or banning them from roads isn't going to achieve that. If the end goal is to merely get them out of the way of cars then you may want to give up up that fight, it isn't going to happen.(and that "you" is not directed specifically at you, Jammies) I think to many times we make laws and policies with no real idea what the end goal is, we just hammer at symptoms of problems.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Interesting, because I was paying attention too! There were 5 of us in the cycle track, and surprisingly, everyone stopped appropriately at the 4 way. Everyone looked to be regular commuters, all males 30-40(as Cliff Fletcher put it..." primarily from a population of aggressive and confident males amped up on adrenaline."- we were not.) So perhaps it is the law abiding cyclists who are less fearless that use the cycle track, and any argument to get rid of them on the basis that other cyclists behave like a-holes isn't a sound argument at all. Collective punishment, and all that.

Double post.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Interesting, because I was paying attention too! There were 5 of us in the cycle track, and surprisingly, everyone stopped appropriately at the 4 way. Everyone looked to be regular commuters, all males 30-40(as Cliff Fletcher put it..." primarily from a population of aggressive and confident males amped up on adrenaline."- we were not.) So perhaps it is the law abiding cyclists who are less fearless that use the cycle track, and any argument to get rid of them on the basis that other cyclists behave like a-holes isn't a sound argument at all. Collective punishment, and all that.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same
Thing.

I'm not talking about the bike lane on 7th. I have no problems with this and generally use it correctly and respectfully. I'm talking about one street over in 8th. People are flying down this all the time on bikes being complete #######s with no regard for the law instead of using the route that is designed for them just one block over.

How can anyone expect public opinion to be in favour of building more
Of these bike lanes, when only some of the cyclists bother to use them? For every person like you who use it properly, there's another jerk cherry picking their route home. You arent going to convince many people bike lanes are a good thing when they are increasing their commute time and they are still having to deal with the same BS from cyclists they did before the bike lanes came into existence.

[TheAlpineOracle]

In my Opinion, If the city ever wants bike lanes to be completely embraced they need to severely step up their policing of cyclists. For people To accept an increase in commute times, there has to be some sort of payoff. That payoff is less interaction with cyclists disobeying the law. There's no noticeable improvement as it currently stands.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I was thinking about this conversation on my way home so I decided I'd see how many times I saw a cyclist break the law before I left downtown (which is essentially two blocks for me).

I was waiting to make a left turn onto 4th Avenue from 8th Street on my way home from work. Typical rush hour traffic. Had to wait two lights. In the process of those two lights, I counted 4 cyclists fly by on the sidewalk or weaved in and out of traffic at a standstill , shoot out into the intersection illegally, and fly up 4th Avenue.

Bike lane is one block over, there's no reason for this but their own agenda. 4 cyclists in two lights during rush hour. Think about that. it's winter. Imagine how much this is happening in the summer.

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I don't think you and I are talking about the same
Thing.

I'm not talking about the bike lane on 7th. I have no problems with this and generally use it correctly and respectfully. I'm talking about one street over in 8th. People are flying down this all the time on bikes being complete #######s with no regard for the law instead of using the route that is designed for them just one block over.

How can anyone expect public opinion to be in favour of building more
Of these bike lanes, when only some of the cyclists bother to use them? For every person like you who use it properly, there's another jerk cherry picking their route home. You arent going to convince many people bike lanes are a good thing when they are increasing their commute time and they are still having to deal with the same BS from cyclists they did before the bike lanes came into existence.

Lot's of drivers breaking various laws and not following common courtesy on any block of traffic you look at downtown or elsewhere.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Lot's of drivers breaking various laws and not following common courtesy on any block of traffic you look at downtown or elsewhere.

I don't see motor vehicles driving the wrong way up on way streets and determining they don't like the traffic scenario so they are going to go off roading.

I don't disputes cars aren't inconsiderate as well or break the law frequently but they don't go back and fourth between what set of rules they I obide by depending upon what best suits them. if vehicles pulled the BS cyclists did, the roads would be absolute carnage.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

In my Opinion, If the city ever wants bike lanes to be completely embraced they need to severely step up their policing of cyclists.

I agree but I don't see how this could be done. Bikes are a lot more nimble and if the cyclist decides to elude the cop, the cop on foot doesn't stand a chance to catch him. There are some cops on bike too but I don't want to see a bike chase in downtown because that'll endanger bystander's life.

Requiring cyclist to have license like cars is probably the way to go but we are a long way from doing that in Calgary.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I agree but I don't see how this could be done. Bikes are a lot more nimble and if the cyclist decides to elude the cop, the cop on foot doesn't stand a chance to catch him. There are some cops on bike too but I don't want to see a bike chase in downtown because that'll endanger bystander's life.

Requiring cyclist to have license like cars is probably the way to go but we are a long way from doing that in Calgary.

Most cyclists have drivers licenses, and I'm not exactly sure, but I thought infractions count as demerits to your license. I could be wrong on that.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I agree but I don't see how this could be done. Bikes are a lot more nimble and if the cyclist decides to elude the cop, the cop on foot doesn't stand a chance to catch him. There are some cops on bike too but I don't want to see a bike chase in downtown because that'll endanger bystander's life.

Not calling you out (as I had the same thought) but I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry that cyclists are so universally known to break and ignore the law - that our first instinct about enforcing the law is not to; because cyclist will almost certainly make a break for it when caught or asked to stop.

We don't do that for bank robbers or people on rollerblades. Heck, we don't even think that way for other vehicles or even motorcycles.