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.
1. 4th and 5th Street don't both need bike lanes. The city picked 5th over fourth. Makes sense to me.
2. 10 ave would be an alternative to 12 ave and would probably be better for cyclists and motorists. Yes, would lose a bit of parking of 10 ave, but could optimize traffic down 12 street better. Slower vehicle traffic speeds on 10 ave make it more cyclist friendly imo.
3. I think it's fine to slow down traffic on more residential streets to accommodate cyclists. Seems to work well on 15 ave and 14 ave?
4. If you had cycle infrastructure on 10 ave instead of 12 ave, then you can do cycle infrastructure on.7th Street or 9 street instead of 8th Street. And have it connect to underpass at 8th Street via 10 avenue SW.
5. Fair point about 5A street. I was thinking as an alternative to a cycle track on 5 Street to south of 17 ave. You could go 5A to Cliff to 25 to river pathway. But you don't really need cycle infrastructure on those quiet streets.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
The fact Gullfoss is not banned for life on here is such an embarrassment. Just a joke.
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)
I'm sure there's factors I'm not aware of, but as a former pretty heavy user of the bike lanes before working from home and never getting off my butt, I found bike lanes like the one on 2nd street SW far preferable to 12th avenue. It's a quieter setting, less cars, less noise, less exhaust, less pedestrians. On 12th avenue I feel like I'm at high alert the entire time, where as 2nd street is more relaxing.
There were former plans to have a bike lane along 13th avenue that I think got killed because of the loss of parking, but that would have been pretty good.
One problem is that stop signs are really costly for cyclists compared to a car. Ideally, you take a quieter street and reorient the stop signs so bikes can cruise through. In Bridgeland they reoriented all the stop signs on 2nd ave so its far more of a through route. It's great for biking now rather than the busier 1st ave, so not living on 2nd ave, I've found it great. I'm sure the people living there hate it, as cars definitely speed more now, and there's more traffic.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
So the Mission-Cliff. Bungalow Community Association got to you, too?!
The Mission-Cliff Bungalow Community Association (MCDCA) is at strict opposition with its rival, the long standing Cliff Bungalow-Mission Community Association (CBMCA)
When fifth street and second street were one way, it was difficult in this neighborhood as drivers would accelerate to 90 km an hour-- blowing through crossing lights at whim.
I recall feeling. several A rear view mirrors blow past my head as someone apparently didn't see me crossing with the yellow flashing lights on the crosswalk
Last edited by para transit fellow; 07-28-2025 at 08:15 AM.
Reason: got to stop typing on my phone
I'm sure there's factors I'm not aware of, but as a former pretty heavy user of the bike lanes before working from home and never getting off my butt, I found bike lanes like the one on 2nd street SW far preferable to 12th avenue. It's a quieter setting, less cars, less noise, less exhaust, less pedestrians. On 12th avenue I feel like I'm at high alert the entire time, where as 2nd street is more relaxing.
There were former plans to have a bike lane along 13th avenue that I think got killed because of the loss of parking, but that would have been pretty good.
One problem is that stop signs are really costly for cyclists compared to a car. Ideally, you take a quieter street and reorient the stop signs so bikes can cruise through. In Bridgeland they reoriented all the stop signs on 2nd ave so its far more of a through route. It's great for biking now rather than the busier 1st ave, so not living on 2nd ave, I've found it great. I'm sure the people living there hate it, as cars definitely speed more now, and there's more traffic.
The solution for side streets like that is to just block car access with boulevards blocking the though movement or traffic circles.
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.
It’s not a detour it’s a route. And yes cars do it all the time. I take one road vs another based on ease of use. Especially when 2nd and 5th are only separated by 4th. I don’t think riding one extra block is much of a hindrance.
The problem is there aren’t enough bike lanes further west. 14th and 8th also need lanes so there there are more alternate routes.
It’s not a detour it’s a route. And yes cars do it all the time. I take one road vs another based on ease of use. Especially when 2nd and 5th are only separated by 4th. I don’t think riding one extra block is much of a hindrance.
The problem is there aren’t enough bike lanes further west. 14th and 8th also need lanes so there there are more alternate routes.
It's an extra 290 meters + one intersection on the south end and 400 meters + one intersection at the north. 2.05km with 2 extra traffic lights vs 1.35kms if 5th was extended.
It's not the end of the world, but it's not nothing. That detour also doesn't make sense if you're trying to access the 5 most vibrant blocks of 17th (including WCHS).
Probably easiest to just close 5th St to cars altogether...there's lots of very simple detours they can take instead...
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
So the Mission-Cliff. Bungalow Community Association got to you, too?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow
The Mission-Cliff Bungalow Community Association (MCDCA) is at strict opposition with its rival, the long standing Cliff Bungalow-Mission Community Association (CBMCA)
What is wrong with these two communities groups? Are they rivals? Do people not like both of them? Or just one of them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
The fact Gullfoss is not banned for life on here is such an embarrassment. Just a joke.
Why the #### are bike lanes a ####ing issue again? Do these ####ers seriously think we're dumb ####s and just going to accept that ####ing bike lanes are our biggest issue now?
God dammit I'm so tired of these random manufactured issues.
All thanks to the province of course. Yesterday it was those school books. Now it's the bike lanes. Tomorrow it'll be....public art again maybe?
The Following User Says Thank You to Looch City For This Useful Post:
In this province we stand up for the right of hateful bigots from other countries to spread their toxic views, dammit. You see, we have a shortage of our own, so when we can grab one from elsewhere, it's all hands on deck.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
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.
I agree, we should optimize movement and have options for all modal types. I would argue the right measure is movement of people including pedestrians, but let's keep your framing for a minute. If we wanted to optimize movement of non-pedestrians per hour the answer, roughly speaking, would be to build a lot more dedicated bus right of ways, bike lanes, and transit. Not single car lanes at faster speeds.
Space is at a premium downtown and this is the constraining factor in optimizing movement. This image clearly shows the amount of space each mode of commuting takes. Every bike you put on a bike path means one less car. If drivers actually thought about the system as a whole rather than 'I lost my parking or a lane' they would be happy about bike lanes because it means less cars on the road competing for space.
Or this
I'm just going to keep adding links...
Quote:
Apart from the fact that ripping out bike lanes is a waste of taxpayer money, it simply won’t do the one thing that Doug Ford says it will do. Removing cycling infrastructure to give cars another lane won’t ease congestion in the long run.
“To say giving more space to cars can solve congestion, that just does not work. That is world-is-flat stuff,” said Shoshanna Saxe, an associate professor at the University of Toronto in the department of civil and mineral engineering, who studies sustainable infrastructure. “The consensus is that bike lanes are a critical tool for reducing congestion and increasing mobility. So, no, they don’t cause congestion. Cars cause congestion.”
Bikes lanes also save lives. Taking them out, she added, will not just put cyclists at greater risk of serious injury and death, but also pedestrians and even other drivers, who tend to drive more calmly when bike lanes are present.
Ford has also said bike lanes belong on secondary roads, rather than primary ones. Sometimes, yes, side roads are better (as is the case with Toronto’s Shaw Street bike lane). In other circumstances, primary roads are the best option (as is the case with Bloor Street, where there is no good east-west alternative). Again, researchers have already crunched the data on this too.
“To ride on safe infrastructure, [cyclists] will tolerate about a 20-per-cent ride out of their way,” Saxe said. Anything more than that and cyclists will either just ride on the primary streets anyway or get back in their cars, she said.
The bottom line is that dedicating more space to cars doesn’t work. “We’ve tried it. If that worked, we would never have had congestion in the first place. You cannot build car lanes or expand space for cars [to build your way] out of congestion,” Saxe said.
“There’s two ways to solve congestion,” she continued. “One, dramatic economic collapse; two, more active transport and more public transport.”
Dreeshan was on CBC radio yesterday. I was stuck trying to figure out if he was wilfully lying, or just so hell bent on his plan that he didn't realize the ridiculousness of his words.
"about 2% of people use bike lanes in Calgary, so that means 98% of people are commuting on a daily basis by vehicle."
This is our transport minister, folks. He shouldn't be in charge of anything more important than a ball pit at Bullwinkle's. I was pretty annoyed at Chris dela Torre for not calling him out on that.
Dreeshan was on CBC radio yesterday. I was stuck trying to figure out if he was wilfully lying, or just so hell bent on his plan that he didn't realize the ridiculousness of his words.
"about 2% of people use bike lanes in Calgary, so that means 98% of people are commuting on a daily basis by vehicle."
This is our transport minister, folks. He shouldn't be in charge of anything more important than a ball pit at Bullwinkle's. I was pretty annoyed at Chris dela Torre for not calling him out on that.
