haltcatchfire
Senior Member
It’s not about ambition or imagination. It’s about being honest to the true real life impacts of a decision.
11th Street Underpass | ?m | ?s | City of Calgary
- Thread starter CalgaryTiger
- Start date
DiscoStu
Active Member
The friction of inner city life is what often leads people to leave, or not come in the first place. Gets too pricey, gets too small, parking is too hard, traffic is too busy etc. This would be one of those decisions that needlessly adds friction. I think it's fine to prioritize pedestrians and bikes in the Beltline (just like its fine to prioritize cars in the burbs), but I just don't see any viable reason to get rid of the car lanes here. The "alternate" proposal does everything well, while still clearly giving a much improved preference to bikes and pedestrians. Getting rid of the car lanes, for a very dubious underpass park, is just flat out dumb.
Honestly, for me it just comes down to thinking that having options is good! Just like many great cities have a wide option of housing styles and budgets, a great city allows for multitude of travel modes that gives a wide cross-section of users (residents, visitors, businesses etc) to chose what fits their purpose. I think we all appreciate having the option to travel via whatever is most efficient at the time...whether it's biking, walking, transit or driving. Usually the people who want to force people into this car-free utopia are in their 20s and/or have no kids. They typically don't yet appreciate that priorities change as you start a family, or you have a business, or you get older. It doesn't mean that being car-free is a bad way to live...it just means that for many people, that's just not realistic or desirable.
Choice good!
Honestly, for me it just comes down to thinking that having options is good! Just like many great cities have a wide option of housing styles and budgets, a great city allows for multitude of travel modes that gives a wide cross-section of users (residents, visitors, businesses etc) to chose what fits their purpose. I think we all appreciate having the option to travel via whatever is most efficient at the time...whether it's biking, walking, transit or driving. Usually the people who want to force people into this car-free utopia are in their 20s and/or have no kids. They typically don't yet appreciate that priorities change as you start a family, or you have a business, or you get older. It doesn't mean that being car-free is a bad way to live...it just means that for many people, that's just not realistic or desirable.
Choice good!
Cgloins
New Member
I think this argument ignores every example of urbanism outside of North America and even some within North America. It’s possible to create a city where the driving experience is simultaneously better and there are fewer lanes downtown. Walking, biking, public transit all bring cars off the road and the better you make these options the more people will do them. This decision by itself is small but shows a commitment to walking/biking infrastructure that could be part of a much better future network. Especially with how many units are going up in the west end. I don’t even necessarily think the playground is the best option here but we can build biking and walking infrastructure pretty cheaply compared to driving infrastructure and we need to take advantage of that and take some lanes out of downtown. Also the assumption that people have to move out of downtown is because we build so much of it to leave at the end of the day. In a future where the downtown is lively with people not cars then maybe it can be a place to raise a family.
potatopizzafan
Active Member
The conspiracy side of my brain is telling me that they used the playground option as a sacrificial lamb, that the usual suspects can freak out about and then the city will "concede" and go with option 2 which is the more "traditional" approach.
Hard to get riled up over a bike lane when the other option is complete removal of 2 car lanes
Hard to get riled up over a bike lane when the other option is complete removal of 2 car lanes
Last edited:
lemongrab
Active Member
It's definitely going to have to close for a significant period during construction, so why can't we trial say 6 months of active-only crossing before making a final decision? Ideally getting some IRL use-case data for the status quo first, and then we can evaluate how things change. (I suspect the answer is that once we close the level crossing to cars 'temporarily' it might be tough to reopen again, but that shouldn't be a huge deal)
It would be interesting to know the cost differences here...we can have a pretty good idea of the all-modes option from 6th St SE...the 4th St one cost about $70M in 2011, so easily 9-figures now.
It would be interesting to know the cost differences here...we can have a pretty good idea of the all-modes option from 6th St SE...the 4th St one cost about $70M in 2011, so easily 9-figures now.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I think this is the key issue with this debate people keep skipping over- cost v. Benefit.
If a minimum width pedestrian/cycle underpass costs a few million, but a vehicle one costs $20M is it worth it? What about $100M? When does the cost outweigh the vehicle access benefit?
11th Street can be definitely be useful for local vehicles, but it’s not so important to the network that grade-separation is worth it at any cost.
If CP rail closes the crossing, and we have to decide between the two options, I could see the cost-benefit between a simple and reasonably cheap ped/bike tunnel looking attractive to the cost/benefit of a full vehicle underpass.
Run the same analysis on a busier and more vehicle dominated corridor and the cost/benefit for an expensive vehicle capacity upgrade may be far more obvious.
O-tac
Active Member
Curious to know if those advocating for the elimination of car lanes through a key intersection between downtown and the Beltline have kids?
lemongrab
Active Member
I have two. But I'm just a lowly suburbanite who makes over half of my trips with them on cargo bike
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Quit it with the elitist attitude! People like driving, regardless of other options. That doesn't mean people will only drive, we do have great transit ridership and I see lots of people cycling and scooting to work every day. The roads are still busy though, whether you want to admit that or not. I'm advocating for an option that caters to all modes! And yes, that includes cars. Closing 11th to traffic is mind boggling dumb! putting a playground in there is even dumber.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
That's the point. Local vehicles matter here the most and in multiple ways. So many get fixated on "traffic" as the commuters cutting through the area from suburb to office and we need not worry about the locals, yet many forget that people that live in and around the area who also need to get in and out of their neighbourhoods.
7th or 6th would be a better location for a pedestrian/bike only underpass connection.
JTron
Active Member
I would rather see vehicle traffic left open on 11th St., and mixed in with active mode, but also a separate overpass or underpass somewhere else along the Beltline that is only open to active modes.
The whole idea is to improve active mode options, but that doesn’t mean we have to take away vehicle options in order to do that.
The whole idea is to improve active mode options, but that doesn’t mean we have to take away vehicle options in order to do that.
JTron
Active Member
I think most of us agree the park option is a bad idea.
As someone who cycles around downtown in the Beltline from time to time, I would love to see more infrastructure for cycling or pedestrians, but I think taking vehicle access away from 11th St. is the wrong approach. Why do we need to take away vehicle access in order to make pedestrian and cycling infrastructure better, when both can be accommodated?
Especially when 11th St. is one of the few east West crossings between downtown and the Beltline.
I feel like the people who want vehicle access closed on 11th St. want vehicle access closed everywhere if they had their way, and aren’t looking at the realistic option that all modes will be used.
Even in the two poster card cities for cycling such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen they still support all modes.
I don't see how removing vehicle traffic from a 1-block section of 11 St improves the pedestrian or cyclist experience, except to cater to some perverse sense of fairness (vehicles get exclusive infrastructure, and so should bikes/pedestrians!). 11 St is not Stephen Ave or 17 Ave where pedestrians are competing with cars for space. It's also not a hellscape to walk down 11 St; it's just a downtown street with sidewalks and it's fine both as a driver and as a pedestrian. The worst part is the inadequate bike lanes, and occasionally waiting for a train at the crossing. The underpass plan with car lanes will address both of those things.
I also want to point out that buses are vehicles too, and we will appreciate this being a vehicle underpass if we ever want a bus route on 11 St without a detour.
Now, if this were an overpass, I could see the argument in making this crossing active-only, because it's much, much cheaper to carry bikes and pedestrians over a ramp. But, this is an underpass that is going to cost a lot whether it has two driving lanes, or a dank playground.
I also want to point out that buses are vehicles too, and we will appreciate this being a vehicle underpass if we ever want a bus route on 11 St without a detour.
Now, if this were an overpass, I could see the argument in making this crossing active-only, because it's much, much cheaper to carry bikes and pedestrians over a ramp. But, this is an underpass that is going to cost a lot whether it has two driving lanes, or a dank playground.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Probably every street could use an underpass in practice for vehicles and/or pedestrians. Pedestrians will benefit the most from additional crossings as they have such a high time penalty to go to another underpass. There's obvious benefit to drivers too, but less as drivers aren't as impacted due to higher travel speeds - they can get to an alternative route reasonably quickly.
By it comes to resources available and priority. If the choice is between $100M to get 1 vehicle underpass at 11th Street or 10 x $10M pedestrian underpasses for all remaining downtown streets without pedestrian underpasses, the pedestrian mobility improvement would be the no brainer. Of course, if we are forced to engineer pedestrian underpasses to the standards of vehicle ones (i.e. must be big enough to fit a fire truck on a bike path) then the cost savings disappears and you might as well build a single all-modes one.
I think the playground space is the red-herring here among the choices - it's practically free compared to underpass costs. Even if there was no playground, all-mode or car-free options have connectivity trade-offs and different cost impacts.
My best guess of what will actually happen is we build nothing until CP rail forces us too actually lock down a plan.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
The sidewalks north of the CPR tracks on 11th are fairly inadequate, the traffic moving to and from the LRT station is quite heavy during the rush. Should be at least 3 times bigger! lol
The road should be a single lane each way with a center turn lane, and a protected bike lane on each side, about the same width as we have now. The sidewalks are what can get a lot wider.
The road should be a single lane each way with a center turn lane, and a protected bike lane on each side, about the same width as we have now. The sidewalks are what can get a lot wider.