7th Street "cycle track"

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by core_upt


What would be a more complete roll-out? Build the entire cycle track network and then open it at once?

Not what I meant by "half assed implementation"

There was already discussion regarding registration/insurance for bicycle users. I think licensing should also be considered. Nothing crazy, think along the lines of the watercraft licensing, maybe an online course and exam where any future users of the bicycle track system and it's feeder bicycle lane network be required to show proficiency in understanding specific traffic signals related to their activity as well as general traffic legalities. There seems to be this assumption that all cyclists are motorists who have made a choice. This is not always the case, a cyclist may not hold a valid motor vehicle license, yet they area allowed to share the roadway with them? At the bare minimum they should be forced to prove proficiency regarding basic traffic signs and signals.

There are any number of ways the implementation of this system could have mitigated issues, The City chose none of them. Which is fairly typical.

I think this quote gets to the route of the issue.

Originally posted by Maxt
Thats what happens when you elect small minded out of touch activists instead of representatives.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[FraserB]

Originally posted by core_upt

Either way, cycle tracks and increased bicycle networking is going to be the way that this city, and every other modernized city, is going. The more that cities accommodate cyclists, then the more people cycle. The more people cycle, the safer it becomes as drivers learn to be more aware of cyclists, and cyclists realize they don't need to "fight" for the road. All of this takes time, but this isn't anything that is going away, so get used to it and learn to deal with it.

And at the same time remove any and all responsibilities that bikers might have for their actions.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
What exactly is the point of choking off transportation infrastructure (both transit bus and vehicle) for this seasonal alternative that serves a fractional minority of commuters?

Fractional minority, exactly EXTREME fractional minority.

The other side of the argument will say "but how can we turn the fractional minority into the majority if we do nothing?"

The answer is riding a bike will NEVER EVER be a viable alternative for the vast majority of commuters into the downtown core. As you mentioned our weather and climate will NEVER EVER allow it.

So the question again gets asked, if this system is doomed to be a complete and utter failure from the beginning why bother? Is the money spent not better spent elsewhere?

Maxt answered the "why bother" question. This bike track, and the associated lanes have nothing to do with increasing ridership, because it wont. It has everything to do with optics. The City and Council has this warped vision of themselves and our city, that they will try to perpetuate at what appears to be any cost. Scary.

[FixedGear]

why are you angry? chill out.

[core_upt]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Fractional minority, exactly EXTREME fractional minority.

The other side of the argument will say "but how can we turn the fractional minority into the majority if we do nothing?"

The answer is riding a bike will NEVER EVER be a viable alternative for the vast majority of commuters into the downtown core. As you mentioned our weather and climate will NEVER EVER allow it.

So the question again gets asked, if this system is doomed to be a complete and utter failure from the beginning why bother? Is the money spent not better spent elsewhere?

Maxt answered the "why bother" question. This bike track, and the associated lanes have nothing to do with increasing ridership, because it wont. It has everything to do with optics. The City and Council has this warped vision of themselves and our city, that they will try to perpetuate at what appears to be any cost. Scary.

It's may be an extreme minority that currently ride (under 2%) but there has been an expressed interest in the MAJORITY of Calgarians who wish to cycle more than they currently are. Creating the infrastructure allows this minority to grow.

Secondly, weather has not stopped Montreal, New York, Chicago and most notably Minneapolis from investing in and growing their share of cyclists. Minneapolis is regarded as one of the top cycling cities in North America.

And to earlier points, there is a planned increase in bylaw enforcement and education for cyclists along these and other routes.

As someone who drives more often than I bike, I am glad to see more cyclists and cycle infrastructure. hopefully it translates to less cars on the road.

[FixedGear]

what percentage of the population is handicapped? when are we going to start bitching about all of the prime parking spaces, ramps, oversized bathroom stalls, etc. that are devoted to this small minority of the population? I mean I never see people in wheelchairs using those ramps, we should stop building these everywhere! what a waste of time and money! This would be better directed at the majority of the population that actually have 2 working legs!!! doens't this make you all super PISSED OFF and ANGRY??!?!?!!

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by core_upt


It's may be an extreme minority that currently ride (under 2%) but there has been an expressed interest in the MAJORITY of Calgarians who wish to cycle more than they currently are. Creating the infrastructure allows this minority to grow.

Uh, more like under 0.2%.

But beyond that, not only is the purpose of an elected representative to express the will of the people, but it is also to exercise prudent decision making for them on subjects the general layman shouldn't be expected to know.

People say LOTS of things. That doesn't mean they do, which makes a poll meaningless.

You're argument is moot, as there are about 0.001% of commuters who bike in the winter. That will never change, even if the lanes were all designed for bicycles. Everyone would just ride transit at that point (a noble cause IMO).

[core_upt]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Uh, more like under 0.2%.

But beyond that, not only is the purpose of an elected representative to express the will of the people, but it is also to exercise prudent decision making for them on subjects the general layman shouldn't be expected to know.

People say LOTS of things. That doesn't mean they do, which makes a poll meaningless.

You're argument is moot, as there are about 0.001% of commuters who bike in the winter. That will never change, even if the lanes were all designed for bicycles. Everyone would just ride transit at that point (a noble cause IMO).

1.9%, as reported in the 2011 Cycling Strategy, which is what is driving these decisions. (PG. 16 - http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...g-strategy.pdf)

Winter cycling will continue to rise as pathway and cycletrack clearance becomes priority for snow clearance. For as miserable as our winter can be, there are plenty of days with no snow on the ground, and warm enough temps that cycling is very feasible. I cycled everyday through winter in Sweden, with temps down to -15. If you build it - they will come.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
You are talking about a city that has winter for a pretty solid 7 months of the year, sporadic torrential downpours for another 2, and maybe if you are really lucky you get 3 months that are actually viable for riding your bike to work. Where exactly do you think those people go for the 9 month of shit weather? What exactly is the point of choking off transportation infrastructure (both transit bus and vehicle) for this seasonal alternative that serves a fractional minority of commuters?

Can't agree on the 3 months of viable riding weather - when I used to cycle commute it was from early May into late October equating to about 6 months of ride-able days for the relatively fair weather rider I was. Anything below -5C and I didn't ride as a rule because I just wasn't geared up for anything colder than that.

Anyhow, the changes in the past few years with respect to increased cycle infrastructure whether through the 7th Street cycle-way or dedicated cycle lanes like on 10th Street NW is something I'm sort of at odds with. I do understand and support for a N-S relatively safe passageway for cyclists through the downtown core as myself and my kids have cycled on weekends down to the south beltline area for lunch or whatever from north central Calgary - the problem I have with the 7th Street selection is that it doesn't connect well on either end.

Now take 10th Street - well I do see cyclists on it and more all the time, smarter cyclists will migrate to it as it provides a safer way of getting downtown. Do I believe that a loss of a regular lane will be compensated by a proportional increase of cyclists - not in a million years. But it is providing a service that will see increased use over time and with the coming cycle lanes on Northmount Drive, it will see even more use.

The problem with downtown is that there is no easy solution for a proper N-S cycle corridor - the new 4th Street SE underpass is great with it's wide sidewalks and lanes but it is too far east to work properly as a N-S cycle corridor as the bulk of the population and destinations lies much further to the west. Possibly 8th Street should've been the one to have been butchered, but what problems would've been created using 8th Street as a cycle path as opposed to 7th Street?

[Maxt]

Originally posted by FixedGear
what percentage of the population is handicapped? when are we going to start bitching about all of the prime parking spaces, ramps, oversized bathroom stalls, etc. that are devoted to this small minority of the population? I mean I never see people in wheelchairs using those ramps, we should stop building these everywhere! what a waste of time and money! This would be better directed at the majority of the population that actually have 2 working legs!!! doens't this make you all super PISSED OFF and ANGRY??!?!?!!

I dont think people choose to be handicapped..

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by core_upt


1.9%, as reported in the 2011 Cycling Strategy

And as has been discussed elsewhere on Beyond, these numbers are absolute bullshit. Period. End of discussion. There are not 2.0% of downtown commuters biking to work.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Maxt

I dont think people choose to be handicapped..

You can't debate with stupidity. FixedGear is another one on my ignore list for exactly that reason. He compared the need for handicap access with the need for bike lanes. Why bother discussing anything with anyone that stupid? Just let nonsense like that lie.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Maxt

I dont think people choose to be handicapped..

they don't choose to be handicapped, but they do choose to be mobile. why are we wasting all of this time, money, and porn-star-parking-spots on such a small minority of the population? (i'm obviously being sarcastic.)

one could argue that many cyclists don't really have a choice either. for some people, cycling is the only sensible mode of transportation. I commute by bike, not because I wouldn't rather drive my car, but because it would take the same time either way and parking would cost me thousands of dollars per year. my commute by public transport would take 3 or 4 times as long.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by FixedGear


no, but they choose to be mobile. why are we wasting all of this time, money, and porn-star-parking-spots on such a small minority of the population? (i'm obviously being sarcastic.)

one could argue that many cyclists don't really have a choice either. for some people, cycling is the only sensible mode of transportation. I commute by bike, not because I wouldn't rather drive my car, but because it would take the same time either way and parking would cost me thousands of dollars per year. my commute by public transport would take 3 or 4 times as long.

You could take transit, a cab or car to go. You have choices.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Maxt


You could take transit, a cab or car to go. You have choices.

just like handicapped people can climb stairs with their arms. Or park in the back of the parking lot like the rest of us.

as i said, transit would take 3 or 4 times as long. not a viable option. thankfully I live in a city that long ago embraced cycling. pretty much every road here has a bike lane, and there are loads of cyclists.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by FixedGear


just like handicapped people can climb stairs with their arms. Or park in the back of the parking lot like the rest of us.

as i said, transit would take 3 or 4 times as long. not a viable option. thankfully I live in a city that long ago embraced cycling. pretty much every road here has a bike lane, and there are loads of cyclists.

Now you are just being a clown.

[core_upt]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


And as has been discussed elsewhere on Beyond, these numbers are absolute bullshit. Period. End of discussion. There are not 2.0% of downtown commuters biking to work.

So what makes your number more accurate than the one the city uses?

[bspot]

Winter cycling is getting more and more popular, especially with newly built and cleared infrastructure (RiverWalk).

You don't need to be hardcore to ride in the winter. I ride every single day of the year. The biggest discouraging factors to winter riding is the amount of time you spend putting on cold weather clothing, and the cost of it. If you are dressed/geared up appropriately, the actual riding is pretty comfortable and fairly safe. When off of the cleared cycling infrastructure is where it gets sketchy (slushy snow rutted roads that you are trying to share with cars). I think if people could ride to and from work on cleared cycle tracks/pathways, many people would feel more comfortable driving.

I'd frankly rather ride in the cold for 10-15 minutes and be at work instead of waiting for a hot sweaty cramped bus outside standing still in the cold for 10-15 minutes on a snow day when the bus schedule is all screwed up.

Finally, people in this town suck at driving. The european cities with heavy cycling infrastructure have, in general, much more skilled drivers that grow up driving in tight/busy environments. The cars, bikes and pedestrians all mill about without screwing each other over. We have to dumb it down for people over here, and still people can't figure out things such as advanced turning arrows You also have clueless cyclists who think despite having all this fancy infrastructure built for them, that they can continue to ignore traffic signals/rules to suit themselves

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by core_upt


So what makes your number more accurate than the one the city uses?

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. In fact, how do they even know the person is commuting and not just traveling around downtown in general?

I'm not against bicycles, in fact, I'd love to see more people using them, and I agree that I would rather bike 100% of the time rather than wait outside 15 minutes when I could just bike. Still doesn't change the fact that nowhere in North America is the amount of ridership in a city with winter conditions high enough to justify restricting car access.

I know about 12 people commute to Imperial's office downtown (IIRC) as he bitched about their bicycle parking space being stuff full all the time. So there is that