MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[GullFoss]

Id suggest way to look at the problem is optimizing movement of non-pedestrians per hour while providing options for all modal types. The answer, roughly speaking, is to keep high traffic, higher speed thoroughfares for motor vehicle traffic and provide dedicated bike lanes on quieter streets and avenues.

In your example, engineers took a road that wasn't super efficient (too many parked cars) and made it incrementally more efficient. But there was a more efficient solution that wasn't chosen which was no bike lanes.

So yeah, the city is getting a lot right, but I'd suggest there's always room for further optimization

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Id suggest way to look at the problem is optimizing movement of non-pedestrians per hour while providing options for all modal types. The answer, roughly speaking, is to keep high traffic, higher speed thoroughfares for motor vehicle traffic and provide dedicated bike lanes on quieter streets and avenues.

Why only optimize for motor vehicle modal type when it’s the least efficiency from a space and cost perspective? Optimize for active transport first, then mass transit then personal vehicles would create far better optimization.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Why only optimize for motor vehicle modal type

1. I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by Roughneck

motor vehicle traffic has the least efficiency from a space and cost perspective? Optimize for active transport first, then mass transit then personal vehicles would create far better optimization.

2. This statement rests on a lot of assumptions that aren't true in many instances

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Who pays CP the infinity dollars they would want for agreeing to that?

I mean... the amount of profit they would make from the land sale would likely be much larger than the cost to buy new land outside of the city and lay down new tracks.

Otherwise, it would be interesting to see how expropriation would work in that circumstance. As a corporation, they can try to fight it but if the city deems it is necessary for the development of downtown to take the land (and maybe reference the safety aspect to not have potentially explosive trains moving through the core of the city after Lac-Mégantic blew up) then the question would just come down to compensation.

Early in the conversation they could probably try and get fair market value for the land but I think when you get further down the process the valuation decreases in a way that the landowner doesn't tend to be happy with. I vaguely remember stories about that from when the blue line was being built.

If the city bought and developed the land (specifically the ogden train yards) they could potentially build enough housing and retail to sell and cover a big chunk of the costs.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

1. I didn't say that.

Sure you did:

The answer, roughly speaking, is to keep high traffic, higher speed thoroughfares for motor vehicle traffic and provide dedicated bike lanes on quieter streets and avenues.

—-

But there was a more efficient solution that wasn't chosen which was no bike lanes.


How does this result in optimization for anything other than cars?

2. This statement rests on a lot of assumptions that aren't true in many instances

Which assumptions for which instances?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I mean... the amount of profit they would make from the land sale would likely be much larger than the cost to buy new land outside of the city and lay down new tracks.

Otherwise, it would be interesting to see how expropriation would work in that circumstance. As a corporation, they can try to fight it but if the city deems it is necessary for the development of downtown to take the land (and maybe reference the safety aspect to not have potentially explosive trains moving through the core of the city after Lac-Mégantic blew up) then the question would just come down to compensation.

Early in the conversation they could probably try and get fair market value for the land but I think when you get further down the process the valuation decreases in a way that the landowner doesn't tend to be happy with. I vaguely remember stories about that from when the blue line was being built.

If the city bought and developed the land (specifically the ogden train yards) they could potentially build enough housing and retail to sell and cover a big chunk of the costs.

I'm pretty sure the city does not have the power to do that (expropriation) with CP land. We are basically at their mercy.

[surferguy]

Maybe the city should look at declaring sovereignty over the CP tracks

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I'm pretty sure the city does not have the power to do that (expropriation) with CP land. We are basically at their mercy.

That's what I thought as well. CP pre-dates Alberta and Calgary.

[Table 5]

Yeah, CP's legal rights go back far and deep. I remember when we sold our house in Bridgeland (nowhere near any existing rail line), we found out that technically CP still had some long-standing legal right to buy that land.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Sure you did:

The answer, roughly speaking, is to keep high traffic, higher speed thoroughfares for motor vehicle traffic and provide dedicated bike lanes on quieter streets and avenues.

—-

But there was a more efficient solution that wasn't chosen which was no bike lanes.


How does this result in optimization for anything other than cars?

An example of keeping higher traffic roads for motorized vehicles, which includes public transit, would be 4th street, 8 street, 14 street, McLeod trail. Then you could add bike lanes on 2nd Street, 1st Street, centre street, 5th Street, 6th Street, 7 street, 9 street, 10 street, 11 street, 12 street. Likewise, bike lanes could be a good option on avenues such as 10th, 13, 14, 15.

Which assumptions for which instances?

You would need to figure out flow per hour of passengers for different modal types and then see how it changes by adding/removing dedicated lanes of traffic for different types of transport modes.

If specific roads allow for large flow of vehicles, substituting bike lanes would be net inefficient if it congests road traffic in return for a marginal increase in cycling flow.

In that scenario, it makes more sense to put dedicated bike lanes on less used roads where cycle traffic moves at same speed, but the presence of cycle track doesn't adversely impact vehicle and public transit as much.

Likewise, BRT can be a failure for public policy if has low ridership and also takes away road space, making busy thoroughfares congested. Makes more sense to have the extra lane of road and regular buses in this example.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, CP's legal rights go back far and deep. I remember when we sold our house in Bridgeland (nowhere near any existing rail line), we found out that technically CP still had some long-standing legal right to buy that land.

Yup. You do not mess with the Railroad.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Historical and Modern Road Planning rests on a lot of assumptions that aren't true in many instances

FYP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgJ9...nty%7CCityNerd

Which isn't too say the active mode planning is a perfectly data driven science, because it definitely isn't. But we fail the critical thinking element beyond the spreadsheets:

The business case for road expansion is usually pretty dubious before event factoring externalities (almost all negative), subsequent project costs, or even factoring the delays caused by construction into the analysis. OTOH, the business cases for transit and active mode may not be similarly dubious on a simple balance sheet, but the externalities are almost all positive.

Transit/etc often do a decent job of quantifying spinoff benefits - e.g. the corresponding reduction of traffic accidents crashes and expected costs for response/public property damage (though rarely does a municipal study extend into healthcare costs, productivity losses from injured/dead citizens, personal property damage, general insurance premiums, etc). From what I've seen these analyses don't typically make it into the public balance sheet for a given project, but are essentially footnotes.

I've definitely never seen the expected INCREASE for all of those costs considered in a road expansion project, even as a footnote.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

An example of keeping higher traffic roads for motorized vehicles, which includes public transit, would be 4th street, 8 street, 14 street, McLeod trail. Then you could add bike lanes on 2nd Street, 1st Street, centre street, 5th Street, 6th Street, 7 street, 9 street, 10 street, 11 street, 12 street. Likewise, bike lanes could be a good option on avenues such as 10th, 13, 14, 15.




You would need to figure out flow per hour of passengers for different modal types and then see how it changes by adding/removing dedicated lanes of traffic for different types of transport modes.

If specific roads allow for large flow of vehicles, substituting bike lanes would be net inefficient if it congests road traffic in return for a marginal increase in cycling flow.

In that scenario, it makes more sense to put dedicated bike lanes on less used roads where cycle traffic moves at same speed, but the presence of cycle track doesn't adversely impact vehicle and public transit as much.

Likewise, BRT can be a failure for public policy if has low ridership and also takes away road space, making busy thoroughfares congested. Makes more sense to have the extra lane of road and regular buses in this example.

Optimizing person minutes of commute time I think misses the value of good pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in building livable communities.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

Optimizing person minutes of commute time I think misses the value of good pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in building livable communities.

To improve the pedestrian realm, we have speed limits and sidewalks and sidewalk widening projects and sidewalk-road separation using trees, etc. No one is arguing in favor of optimizing vehicular commute time at the expense of the pedestrian realm, especially within the compact central area of a city. It obviously needs to be walkable.

However, for cycling infrastructure, I think it depends what the purpose is. If the purpose of cycling is recreational, then it makes sense to have a really high quality and accessible recreational cycling infrastructure, which we have via the river pathway system.

However, if the purpose of cycling is transportation, then it needs to be optimized alongside other modal types, including public transit and private transit. There is no justification to giving cyclists priority over other modal options, especially in a city like Calgary where cycling is not feasible for months of the year. The answer isn't "no bike lanes", but the city could definitely revisit some decisions such as:

1. Why is there is bike lane on 8th street in Beltline instead of 7th/9th street
2. Why is there a bike lane on 12 Ave instead of 10 Ave
3. Why dedicated bike lanes don't exist on 5th Street or 5A Street (south of 17 Avenue SW)

If you consider the above, it calls for "more net bike lanes" but modification of the system to better optimize the system a whole.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The answer isn't "no bike lanes", but the city could definitely revisit some decisions such as:

1. Why is there is bike lane on 8th street in Beltline instead of 7th/9th street
2. Why is there a bike lane on 12 Ave instead of 10 Ave
3. Why dedicated bike lanes don't exist on 5th Street or 5A Street (south of 17 Avenue SW)

1. My place is a block over from 8 Street and I rely on the road heavily; I have no idea what bike lane on 8 Street you're referring to, there isn't one.
2. Yeah, this one f'cking sucks.
3. 5 Street south of 17 Avenue could make sense as it would add continuity to the bike lane system, and 5 St south of 17 Ave still handles a decent amount of traffic such that a lane would make it safer (but not *too* much traffic that it would cause snarls). However, it would likely mean the loss of the street parking along the SB side of 5 Street, I don't see a way to maintain both. A bike lane on 5a Street doesn't make much sense to me because it's a sleepy residential road that doesn't handle a ton of traffic, so does a separated bike lane really do a whole lot?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

An example of keeping higher traffic roads for motorized vehicles, which includes public transit, would be 4th street, 8 street, 14 street, McLeod trail. Then you could add bike lanes on 2nd Street, 1st Street, centre street, 5th Street, 6th Street, 7 street, 9 street, 10 street, 11 street, 12 street. Likewise, bike lanes could be a good option on avenues such as 10th, 13, 14, 15.

What makes 4th and 8th Streets high traffic roads but 5th Street and 10th Ave low traffic ones? Their post covid traffic numbers are all comparable.

If specific roads allow for large flow of vehicles, substituting bike lanes would be net inefficient if it congests road traffic in return for a marginal increase in cycling flow.


In that scenario, it makes more sense to put dedicated bike lanes on less used roads where cycle traffic moves at same speed, but the presence of cycle track doesn't adversely impact vehicle and public transit as much.

The high capacity roads have space to spare that allows the maintenance of lane km to deal with max traffic flow. You have several proposed streets that would see an entire travel lane be lost altogether, reducing flow by 33% in some cases. That's not efficient, surely.

1. Why is there is bike lane on 8th street in Beltline instead of 7th/9th street
2. Why is there a bike lane on 12 Ave instead of 10 Ave
3. Why dedicated bike lanes don't exist on 5th Street or 5A Street (south of 17 Avenue SW)

1. There's one planned on 8th because it goes into downtown, while 7th and 9th don't. As it stands there is only one protected cycle lane that connects south of the CP tracks into downtown west of 4th St SE.


2. Traffic and parking are less affected by putting it on 12th Ave than 10th Ave.


3. Because of parking on 5th Street. Maybe they'll be ready to dip their toes into that battle again, soon. But Mission/Cliff Bungalow Residents are not willing to lose any parking (or lose the northbound travel lane).


Also 5a street doesn't connect with anything and terminates at Royal Ave and isn't wide enough. You can't be putting forth 5a St as a good faith proposal. Might as well tell downtown vehicle commuters to just use 6th Street if they're upset about the cycle lanes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

To improve the pedestrian realm, we have speed limits and sidewalks and sidewalk widening projects and sidewalk-road separation using trees, etc. No one is arguing in favor of optimizing vehicular commute time at the expense of the pedestrian realm, especially within the compact central area of a city. It obviously needs to be walkable.

However, for cycling infrastructure, I think it depends what the purpose is. If the purpose of cycling is recreational, then it makes sense to have a really high quality and accessible recreational cycling infrastructure, which we have via the river pathway system.

However, if the purpose of cycling is transportation, then it needs to be optimized alongside other modal types, including public transit and private transit. There is no justification to giving cyclists priority over other modal options, especially in a city like Calgary where cycling is not feasible for months of the year. The answer isn't "no bike lanes", but the city could definitely revisit some decisions such as:

1. Why is there is bike lane on 8th street in Beltline instead of 7th/9th street
2. Why is there a bike lane on 12 Ave instead of 10 Ave
3. Why dedicated bike lanes don't exist on 5th Street or 5A Street (south of 17 Avenue SW)

If you consider the above, it calls for "more net bike lanes" but modification of the system to better optimize the system a whole.

I’d disagree that commute times should compete with commute times. Roads get used by residents throughout the day and not just rush hour. Maximizing that experience is as important as shaving peak commute times.

12 Average is a one way street which reduces people bicycle conflicts and reduces wait times at lights for cyclists. It’s also further from 8th ave and the river pathway so not redundant.

Fully agree with you that they should get rid of parking spaces and finish connecting 5th st to elbow. Someone will die there at some point.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What makes 4th and 8th Streets high traffic roads but 5th Street and 10th Ave low traffic ones? Their post covid traffic numbers are all comparable.





The high capacity roads have space to spare that allows the maintenance of lane km to deal with max traffic flow. You have several proposed streets that would see an entire travel lane be lost altogether, reducing flow by 33% in some cases. That's not efficient, surely.




1. There's one planned on 8th because it goes into downtown, while 7th and 9th don't. As it stands there is only one protected cycle lane that connects south of the CP tracks into downtown west of 4th St SE.


2. Traffic and parking are less affected by putting it on 12th Ave than 10th Ave.


3. Because of parking on 5th Street. Maybe they'll be ready to dip their toes into that battle again, soon. But Mission/Cliff Bungalow Residents are not willing to lose any parking (or lose the northbound travel lane).


Also 5a street doesn't connect with anything and terminates at Royal Ave and isn't wide enough. You can't be putting forth 5a St as a good faith proposal. Might as well tell downtown vehicle commuters to just use 6th Street if they're upset about the cycle lanes.

There’s also already bike lanes on 2nd st that connect with the 12ave bike lanes. Anyone coming from the south using the pathway system only has to go an extra couple along the elbow pathway to hit 2nd. I doubt there’s that much demand for another set of bike lanes a couple blocks over. Same with anyone coming from downtown.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

There’s also already bike lanes on 2nd st that connect with the 12ave bike lanes. Anyone coming from the south using the pathway system only has to go an extra couple along the elbow pathway to hit 2nd. I doubt there’s that much demand for another set of bike lanes a couple blocks over. Same with anyone coming from downtown.

So the Mission-Cliff. Bungalow Community Association got to you, too?!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

There’s also already bike lanes on 2nd st that connect with the 12ave bike lanes. Anyone coming from the south using the pathway system only has to go an extra couple along the elbow pathway to hit 2nd. I doubt there’s that much demand for another set of bike lanes a couple blocks over. Same with anyone coming from downtown.

You wouldn’t tolerate that kind of detour if you were a car. Not extending 5th is a failure of the bike network for the least important function. Providing public infrastructure for people to store their private goods.