News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.5K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.1K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.8K     0 

Calgary Bike Lanes and Bike Paths

I am happy to see the city not shying away from on street paths/lanes where there is a park MUP nearby, especially when the MUP is deep inside a park and unlit. Many moons ago I regularly commuted on my bike between Cedarbrae and a retail store near Heritage station at all hours of the day and one fall evening encountered a Coyote acting aggressively towards another cyclist along the path in South Glenmore Park. That encounter always made me second guess using that route after sunset, but there weren't great alternatives.

If our northern and dark for half the year city is serious about cycling as an alternative mode of transport, they need to continue with these projects or work on lighting existing MUPs to allow for 24/7 365 usage. The Point McKay river park in the along the Bow in the NW is an example where this could be beneficial. Bike lane users on Bowness Road are expected to transition to an unlit MUP deep inside a park, which let me tell you from personal experience at night, is pitch black.

1761767478546.png
 
Last edited:
I'm all for making more accessible paths that will encourage those that aren't comfortable riding in pitch black areas (lights or not) have a route that increases the days they will ride/scoot/blade/etc. Far too often our cycling infrastructure continues to be seen through an upper-middle class lens. We would all do well to address that, as it leads to nothing but benefits for all those that choose to utilize the infrastructure.
 
I'd rather see some lighting added in Edworthy than a bike lane be build 200m from the existing bike path. Edworthy there is great in that there are separate walking and wheeling lanes which makes it great for all users. If there was a cycle track in Parkdale north of Bowness Rd, then I could se an argument, but there isn't and the existing infrastructure is fast and easy to get to by cycling.

Anyway, not trying to sound like a jerk, apologies if I did.
 
Last edited:
Mountain Man said:
I'd rather see some lighting added in Edworthy than a bike lane be build 200m from the existing bike path. Edworthy there is great in that there are separate walking and wheeling lanes which makes it great for all users. If there was a cycle track in Parkdale north of Bowness Rd, then I could se an argument, but there isn't and the existing infrastructure is fast and easy to get to by cycling.

Anyway, not trying to sound like a jerk, apologies if I did.
Click to expand...
I use that path to commute as well, and I'd guess they can't add lights for wildlife reasons (nesting?). Maybe they could add something like they have around the downtown portion? Probably not inexpensive for how long that stretch is.
1761848390962.png
 
Bollard lighting could work, but they would need them on both the walking and wheeling pathways. Lots of people use those pathways during the dark winter months and I've seen coyotes stalking people walking small dogs before, so I don't think it would be a hard sell. Big street lights would get complaints from Point McKay residents, so that's likely a non-starter.
 
I think converting the north side sidewalk to wide MUP would be the best bet because it benefits all active-modes. A full main-street treatment would be lovely, but probably not a high enough priority here (and if they do it like 37th St SW the end result will be cars driving even faster...)

The north most driving lane is way too wide in many places, and the road gets downright silly to the west at veteran's way. left turn lane, THREE through lanes, and a slip lane.

The treatment they gave Kensington Rd could work well here, too. Though I wonder about just jumping straight to full bus lanes. There is sporadic parking, random driveways and alleys, odd angled turns, and lots of bustops, so it'll probably take a lot of planning to make a small difference.
 
Mountain Man said:
I'd rather see some lighting added in Edworthy than a bike lane be build 200m from the existing bike path. Edworthy there is great in that there are separate walking and wheeling lanes which makes it great for all users. If there was a cycle track in Parkdale north of Bowness Rd, then I could se an argument, but there isn't and the existing infrastructure is fast and easy to get to by cycling.

Anyway, not trying to sound like a jerk, apologies if I did.
Click to expand...
Ah no, that's okay, I generally agree. Making the most out of these 100% car free cycle routes should be a priority and is far better than incurring additional cost to build something that is going to have conflict points every 200m along Bowness Road. BUT if paths deep inside parks are going to be Calgary's 'bicycle highways' or primary routes or whatever, then they need to be suitable for all users all times of day/year. I'm comfortable cycling with a light through pitch black, but you probably wont convince the average car driver or child to cycle if this is the option they are presented with.

I'd wager that part of why Oulu Finland got to where they are is because their routes are well lit.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Wonderful said:
you probably wont convince the average car driver or child to cycle if this is the option they are presented with.
Click to expand...
You don't have to convince them; the point should be to get the person already cycling part of the year or thinking about it to get on their bike. Sell water to a walrus, not salt to a snail.
 
Mr.Wonderful said:
Ah no, that's okay, I generally agree. Making the most out of these 100% car free cycle routes should be a priority and is far better than incurring additional cost to build something that is going to have conflict points every 200m along Bowness Road. BUT if paths deep inside parks are going to be Calgary's 'bicycle highways' or primary routes or whatever, then they need to be suitable for all users all times of day/year. I'm comfortable cycling with a light through pitch black, but you probably wont convince the average car driver or child to cycle if this is the option they are presented with.

I'd wager that part of why Oulu Finland got to where they are is because their routes are well lit.
Click to expand...
You know, another term for 'conflict points' is 'access points'; these are places where cyclists can get to the apartment buildings, townhouses, medical buildings, offices and shops. I think the richest city in Canada should be able to both provide lighting for well-used paths and provide good access along main routes to communities so that the residents can access the car free routes; we might have to build 1% of an interchange less.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
I think the richest city in Canada should be able to both provide lighting for well-used paths and provide good access along main routes to communities so that the residents can access the car free routes; we might have to build 1% of an interchange less.
Click to expand...
Just wait until the budget... There's already talk about budget cuts to lower the increase. An easy cut is the 5A. See what council is.
 
I'm expecting Atkinson to fight like hell for 5A. He'll probably run circles over some of those newbies that got in, and appear at face value to be Mclean level of competence.
 
This was the part of the platform Farkas ran on. Not sure what the mode-split is these days but fairly certain whatever it is, this approach would be a budget boost.

1000052626.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top