7th Street "cycle track"

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Maxt

Now you are just being a clown.

I know, who says shit like that? What's the point in listening to anything a person like that says?

Comparing the plight of someone confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life, to that of someone who chooses to cycle to work because they can't or won't pay for parking, and don't find the time it takes to use transit acceptable.

Wow just wow. Can we all agree to add FixedGear to our ignore list? Those that don't want to please stop quoting him so the rest of us don't have to be subjected to such epic stupidity.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


I know, who says shit like that? What's the point in listening to anything a person like that says?

Comparing the plight of someone confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life, to that of someone who chooses to cycle to work because they can't or won't pay for parking, and don't find the time it takes to use transit acceptable.

Wow just wow. Can we all agree to add FixedGear to our ignore list? Those that don't want to please stop quoting him so the rest of us don't have to be subjected to such epic stupidity.

I usually let people bury themselves and enjoy it, but you are right, it gets to a point its just not worth mentally processing.

[BigMass]

This is kind of like putting a bandaid over shotgun wound. Telling people to ride bikes to work in their business suits in a city that gets -40C windchills is like banging your head against the wall. The city has traffic issues because we have a small but overcrowded business core and a sprawl that would be more inline with a city of 10 million. REAL solutions would be more affordable residential apartments in the beltline (they can't build them fast enough at this point) and a real subway system that connects surrounding suburbs to downtown (The C-Train is a cute idea for a small town, but not the energy hub of Canada and one of the strongest economies in the world). At this point Calgary needs to start thinking in terms of billions of dollars, not a few million here and there on feel good stuff that really gets you no where fast

[bspot]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


It's just as bullshitty, but the excuse I have is being some schmuck on an internet forum. People rarely see a single rider downtown during commuting times ALL year. There are simply not 2000 bicyclists downtown on any given morning commuting to and from work.

My building has ~160 bikes parked inside today and about 40 on the racks outside.

Our building has about 1300 people in it. That's 15% of people riding today.

Again, this is an absolute peak number, and not the official one for that reason.

In the winter there will be about 25 bikes, or 1.9%.

Our building is obviously on the high side. My theory? Because it's right on the bike path. The infrastructure encourages people to ride.

[whiskas]

Exactly, build it and they will come. There are loads of people who are within biking distance of downtown, who own a bike, and are fit enough to bike, that would do it if there was infrastructure in place that made them feel comfortable they could get to work safely.

As evidenced by the hostile douchebags in this thread, few bicyclists would feel comfortable sharing the road with these people. Which is why dedicated cycle tracks with some form of physical barrier between cars and bikes is needed.

[FraserB]

I’m sure people would have less of an issue if this was set up in a reasonable way. Don’t cut into existing roads and make it so the flow is going to be slower for cars. Don’t eliminate turns and redirect streets, causing more delays.Cars are still the most widely used form of transport, but the city has no issue causing massive headaches in the name of going green, all the while increasing the amount of time that thousands of people spend idling in traffic with their AC on full blast.


I think the biggest is to make every vehicle on the road play by the exact same rules. If I want to operate a vehicle with a motor on a public road, I have to show a very basic understanding of the rules of the road and the signage. Why should that requirement not apply to a vehicle that does not have a motor? Same goes for the fact that I have to make myself financially accountable for any accidents I may cause when I’m operating my motor vehicle on the road. A bike can cause significant damage to a car as well, but for some reason no one would ever consider making them financially responsible. Why should damage caused from a cyclist scraping up by side or breaking off my mirror be considered any differently than a car doing it? Why should there be no punishment for a hit and run caused by a bike?

[Maxt]

Build it and they will come? Like 11 st se? ...
Guess I will have to start snapping pics of the empty bike racks in the buildings I work.. Most of the building operators are considering removing the racks and selling the metal for scrap at this point.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by whiskas
Exactly, build it and they will come.

I know in a couple parkades I've seen bikes in bike racks that NEVER MOVE almost like people are using the racks at their office to store their bikes instead of keeping them at home. So quoting numbers about how many bikes are in the racks where you work doesn't mean shit.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[toor]

Originally posted by bspot
Our building is obviously on the high side. My theory? Because it's right on the bike path. The infrastructure encourages people to ride.

Similar numbers at our 1200-person building which is not in the core, actually on top of a hill. Not many paths but enough residential to get around safely. I don't think your numbers are that out of place.

Originally posted by FraserB
Cars are still the most widely used form of transport, but the city has no issue causing massive headaches in the name of going green, all the while increasing the amount of time that thousands of people spend idling in traffic with their AC on full blast.

The amount of resources needed to accommodate every single-occupant vehicle that wants to do its own thing is absurd. Road capacity can't just magically be increased, especially in a land-locked core and sprawling nightmare like Calgary. Unfortunately "going green" is not something that will happen voluntarily for a lot of people, because humans are naturally lazy. If you chose to waste your day sitting in your car, that's up to you. Sure it's nice to be independent and it's certainly easy, but at some point it stops being worthwhile. I'd rather get sweaty riding to the office, or sleep on the bus.

Regarding licensing or registration, what do you think that's going to accomplish? If there's an accident, the bicyclist always loses. If they hit and run your vehicle, you won't read their plate from more than a couple meters away. Can we somehow license teenagers and drunks as well? They've caused FAR more damage to my vehicles over the years than that one cyclist I hit in a crosswalk... Curiously none of this is even an issue in cities where people have been forced out of their cars by population density, parking, gas prices, taxes and other costs. First pic is Copenhagen, vids are Dutch:





I don't want this city to turn into the USA landscape of freeways and shopping malls, where it is impossible to cross from one side of the street to the other. Everything is a "five minute drive" away and entire neighborhoods are isolated from the world by concrete. Here's a pretty mild example, see if you can spot any sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrians, anything...

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
The City's implementation of bike lanes city wide is absurd at best. This is just one more example. I've said it before I'll say it again, there appears to be a clear agenda from Council to make driving in this city as frustrating as possible. It's a complete joke.

No big secret there, Council intentionally limits downtown parking and access to discourage driving, yet people still insist on hauling their 5m long pickups down there, then complain about the traffic?? Next time you're downtown, imagine that every single person who arrived there came in their very own shiny car or truck. Where the hell are you going to put all of that, and how the hell are you going to get them out of there in a 1-2hr time window!?

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
I know in a couple parkades I've seen bikes in bike racks that NEVER MOVE almost like people are using the racks at their office to store their bikes instead of keeping them at home. So quoting numbers about how many bikes are in the racks where you work doesn't mean shit.

Likewise, it's easy to observe a bike rack (along with inside lockers and shower facilities) filling up in the morning, then emptying out in the afternoon. Are these "parkades" actually secure? Because that's the last place I'd leave my bikes...

[bspot]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


I know in a couple parkades I've seen bikes in bike racks that NEVER MOVE almost like people are using the racks at their office to store their bikes instead of keeping them at home.

I've accounted for that. It's pretty easy when it's -30 and snowing to figure out who actually rode by their slushy/snowy/wet bikes. I'm not counting the few that just ditch them there for winter.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Still, that means at the absolute peak 85% of people are still getting there some other way even with the infrastructure in place. If two thirds of those people are taking personal cars or bus... then that is still upwards of 730 in your building people using roadways.

Again, your building is on the high side, and these are absolute peak numbers. So if you start averaging the DT core, I think the percentage is probably closer to 1-2%

Yet, the new cycle track is reducing lanes by 25-33% depending on which location. That is completely disproportionate to the people that use them even in optimal times. The city is supposed to be doing work which serves the many, not the few.

7th SW street represents about 4% of roadways in the downtown core. Thats going by length. Even less if you go by area.

So they used 25-33% of that. Basically 1% of downtown roads. To service 2% of commuters. Doesn't sound like a big deal...

Plus, taking away lane space on a street like 7th does almost zero to overall downtown traffic flow. The bridges and rail underpasses are the limiting factors. If they took away a lane on the 10th street bridge for bikes, yeah, you'd have a point. As it is they build new bridges for bikes so they don't have to consider such options and it still angers people.

Basically there is no winning. People who have no intention of ever commuting by a method other than personal vehicle will be upset by whatever happens.

Decisions should be made for the greater good of the city. Transportation by personal car is by far the least tax efficient, and we all pay for it. Encouraging transit and active mode commuting saves us all money, and has many other beneficial side effects.

Its understandable a place that used to put road infrastructure #1 on the priority list is going to have many upset people when that finally changes. No one likes change that isn't aligned with their lifestyle, but it's always inevitable.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

All money spent on alternative transportation options should go straight to infrastructure upgrades for Calgary Transit, namely a fund to build the NC LRT, SE LRT, 8th ave tunnel, finish the 4-car train upgrades, buy enough cars to replace the U2 junkers and make all trains 4 car. That will be how we reduce traffic downtown, then we'll have the space to build as many stupid Canadian Prairies cycle tracks as you want.

Don't waste limited resources on the worst kind of commuter (Cyclists) when we have so many good projects waiting for cash.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by toor

No big secret there, Council intentionally limits downtown parking and access to discourage driving, yet people still insist on hauling their 5m long pickups down there, then complain about the traffic?? Next time you're downtown, imagine that every single person who arrived there came in their very own shiny car or truck. Where the hell are you going to put all of that, and how the hell are you going to get them out of there in a 1-2hr time window!?

There seems to be this attitude that if someone is against cycling and the poor implementation of it (at least in this city) that makes them for driving, and also against all other alternatives. Why? The VAST majority of people will.

1) Take their car alone.
2) Take Transit.
3) Cycle to work.

The jump from 1 to 3 is a big one. Far more people will make the jump from 1 to 2 if you can make 2 more accessible and convenient. Especially in a city that's sits under snow for 8 months of the year. We'd all be better served by saying fuck the bike lane bullshit, lets actually build a transit network that works.

[whiskas]

I know several people who prefer to take their bike instead of transit. In many cases you can get places faster on a bike than you can on a bus because buses have to stop constantly, and you have to wait for the bus to arrive. When you hop on your bike there's no worry about transit delays or traffic delaying your commute, you know exactly when you'll be getting to work.

On a bike you don't have to pay for parking, pay for gas, worry about traffic, you don't piss people off with a loud exhaust, you don't pollute, you don't require nearly as much infrastructure as other forms of transport. I would argue that biking is one of the better forms of transport.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


There seems to be this attitude that if someone is against cycling and the poor implementation of it (at least in this city) that makes them for driving, and also against all other alternatives. Why? The VAST majority of people will.

1) Take their car alone.
2) Take Transit.
3) Cycle to work.

The jump from 1 to 3 is a big one. Far more people will make the jump from 1 to 2 if you can make 2 more accessible and convenient. Especially in a city that's sits under snow for 8 months of the year. We'd all be better served by saying fuck the bike lane bullshit, lets actually build a transit network that works.

Yup, it'd be far more useful to be spending money on improving rail transit, than wasting money on bike lanes. Effective rail transit would benefit more people, all year round, and reduce road traffic by getting buses off the roads.
The mental giants at City hall have already made some fundamental mistakes in rail implementation and have started painting themselves into a corner with that mode of transportation.

Originally posted by whiskas

On a bike you don't have to pay for parking, pay for gas, worry about traffic, you don't piss people off with a loud exhaust, you don't pollute, you don't require nearly as much infrastructure as other forms of transport. I would argue that biking is one of the better forms of transport.

Cyclists just piss people off, I have 2 on dashcam today within 5 minutes that almost became road statistics due to their flaunting of the road rules.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by whiskas
I know several people who prefer to take their bike instead of transit. In many cases you can get places faster on a bike than you can on a bus because buses have to stop constantly, and you have to wait for the bus to arrive. When you hop on your bike there's no worry about transit delays or traffic delaying your commute, you know exactly when you'll be getting to work.

I think you are confused... I honestly doubt anyone is worried about the people DOWNTOWN. It's the people transiting in from out of downtown that are the problem/where all the traffic comes from.

As was said, that's why investing the millions of dollars in LRT is much more worthwhile. It is a system/mode of transport that helps EVERYONE, rich, poor, young, old, downtown, suburb

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by whiskas
I know several people who prefer to take their bike instead of transit. In many cases you can get places faster on a bike than you can on a bus because buses have to stop constantly, and you have to wait for the bus to arrive. When you hop on your bike there's no worry about transit delays or traffic delaying your commute, you know exactly when you'll be getting to work.

On a bike you don't have to pay for parking, pay for gas, worry about traffic, you don't piss people off with a loud exhaust, you don't pollute, you don't require nearly as much infrastructure as other forms of transport. I would argue that biking is one of the better forms of transport.

yep, cycling >>>>> public transit. pretty much everything about public transit sucks, I avoid it at all costs.

[core_upt]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

The VAST majority of people will.

1) Take their car alone.
2) Take Transit.
3) Cycle to work.

More people, currently, take transit into the Central Business District than drive. However, transit projects, while definitely worth while, are bloody expensive. So we can save up and save up and spend millions and millions on transit upgrades, or we can spend a couple million dollars on a cycle network that can double or triple the number of cyclists coming into the core.

The $ to ridership numbers make sense. Cycle infrastructure is cheap compared to road or transit infrastructure. And for each person you pull out of a car and onto a bike, reduces congestion.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by core_upt
or we can spend a couple million dollars on a cycle network that can double or triple the number of cyclists coming into the core.

Double or triple the current number of cyclists still only brings us to a single digit percentage And only for a small portion of the year.

So again what's the point? Again it brings us to the same issue, which is this cyclist "movement" has far more to do with optics than it does any meaningful change to the current status quo. It's both a waste of time and money, that seems pretty clear.

[core_upt]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Double or triple the current number of cyclists still only brings us to a single digit percentage And only for a small portion of the year.

So again what's the point? Again it brings us to the same issue, which is this cyclist "movement" has far more to do with optics than it does any meaningful change to the current status quo. It's both a waste of time and money, that seems pretty clear.

Pulling 2,500 to 4,000 cars off the road, even if only in nicer months, seems worthwhile, doesn't it?? When you think of the roads these cars require, parking spaces, congestion, emissions?

Well, based on this there are 140,000 downtown workers. Using the City used figure of 1.9% of trips made by bike, that means about 2,660 people currently ride downtown. Doubling or tripling that DOES make a difference, especially when it doesn't cost much (relatively speaking).