News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Calgary Bike Lanes and Bike Paths

I think 6th Ave makes the most sense for a ton of reasons (connections on each end, proximity to 7th, etc). At which point 3rd could stay or go...but it's absurd to take it out for no real reason
 
It's a remarkable amount of fuss for a pretty insignificant stretch of underutilized downtown pavement.

It feels like there's a communications issue here - the city's "promise" that 3rd Avenue was to be temporary declared during some level of public engagement a few years ago to a small group of stakeholders is holding too much weight here, likely because the City and about 4 building owners are the only ones who actually remember the details. 99% of the public and street users on 3rd Ave interact with the space daily for years and likely don't remember or even know about the nuances of a multi-year temporary program that was discussed years before they even paid attention.

Secondly, for stuff like how a street is temporarily or permanently designed, the city almost always holds absolute authority on it, so "promises" are just a point-in-time idea of the future. Things and context changes; the city is under no obligation to complete it's "promises" of these sorts of plans. This lack of holding to promises is indeed what is often most frustrating about the city's actions, but in this case if the plan was a bad one, they are under no obligation to follow through with it. It's a mistake to cling to a vague idea from a few years ago to rip this corridor out, when evidence and opinion seems totally fine with leaving it in.

Extra confusing to everyone is that the condition and quality of the "temporary" cycletrack on 3rd Avenue vastly exceeds the quality of the "permanent", far more utilized corridors of 5th Street and 12th Avenue. Sometimes this type of gap in quality is inevitable based on budgets and design standards of different eras, but in this case it makes the mental gymnastics to justify tearing out 3rd Avenue which is in near perfect condition with minimal issues seem bizarre.

Lastly on the 4th, 5th, 6th Avenue debate - if a car requires convenient and safe access to a street, so does a bicycle, true everywhere but absolutely mandatory for a dense city centre. Take 2 lanes from every downtown car sewer and put a cycletrack and dedicated bus lanes on every corridor.
 
CBBarnett said:
It's a remarkable amount of fuss for a pretty insignificant stretch of underutilized downtown pavement.

It feels like there's a communications issue here - the city's "promise" that 3rd Avenue was to be temporary declared during some level of public engagement a few years ago to a small group of stakeholders is holding too much weight here, likely because the City and about 4 building owners are the only ones who actually remember the details. 99% of the public and street users on 3rd Ave interact with the space daily for years and likely don't remember or even know about the nuances of a multi-year temporary program that was discussed years before they even paid attention.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling the push to get rid of the cycle track is coming from two owners (Quadreal and Oxford) who own 6 towers along 3rd ave. The funny thing is they complain about the cycle tracks impeding their ability to put in retail along 3rd ave but these guys built the buildings without retail long before the cycle tracks came in. They also designed the buildings to have the parkade entrances off of 3rd ave, so retail never had much of a chance anyhow. When they do put it in, they don't even bother with an entrance directly off the sidewalk.

1688091659742.png
 
Last edited:
Surrealplaces said:
I have a feeling the push to get rid of the cycle track is coming from two owners (Quadreal and Oxford) who own 6 towers along 3rd ave. The funny thing is they complain about the cycle tracks impeding their ability to put in retail along 3rd ave but these guys built the buildings without retail long before the cycle tracks came in. They also designed the buildings to have the parkade entrances off of 3rd ave, so retail never had much of a chance anyhow. When they do put it in, they don't even bother with an entrance directly off the sidewalk.

View attachment 488820
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Shaw and Rogers (Whose headquarters are also on 3rd) have announced their support for the cycle track. I would like to see a full-on corporate battle commence over this! Developers vs Telecom, fight to the death!!

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/yy...525/Rogers_-_Letter_of_Support.pdf?1687752525
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/yy...52524/Shaw_-_Letter_Of_Support.pdf?1687752524
 
I've been curious about the traffic flow at 22nd Ave and 2nd St NW.
Barriers were put in (this air photo is old, the temporary ones shown are now replaced by permanent.
I have added the traffic control signage. two small yield signs warning cyclists who are crossing the barrier to yield to traffic on the other side

1688493314007.png


What there isn't though is any control of cars coming from the left or right. The stop lines and crosswalk lines in this photo have since been removed.
Here's a current view from the east looking west

1688493393798.png


So my concern is what happens if a car in this view is turning left while a cyclist is heading to the barrier from the left to the right.
e.g.:

1688493679549.png


It seems like a car turning left should yield for straight through cyclist traffic but there is no indication of that.
 

Attachments

  • 1688493575817.png
    1688493575817.png
    821.9 KB · Views: 61
Interesting question. Would it act like an uncontrolled intersection, with the vehicle who arrives first getting right-of-way, or you yeild to the right if arriving at the same time? Or, does the fact it is a defacto left turn for the vehicle (no other option) mean it isn't an intersection?
 
JoeUrban said:
I've been curious about the traffic flow at 22nd Ave and 2nd St NW.
Barriers were put in (this air photo is old, the temporary ones shown are now replaced by permanent.
I have added the traffic control signage. two small yield signs warning cyclists who are crossing the barrier to yield to traffic on the other side

View attachment 489809

What there isn't though is any control of cars coming from the left or right. The stop lines and crosswalk lines in this photo have since been removed.
Here's a current view from the east looking west

View attachment 489810

So my concern is what happens if a car in this view is turning left while a cyclist is heading to the barrier from the left to the right.
e.g.:

View attachment 489812

It seems like a car turning left should yield for straight through cyclist traffic but there is no indication of that.
Click to expand...
That's a really good point. I've cycled through that intersection before, and what I do (when heading southbound on 2nd) is go to the far left side of 2nd so I can see any cars coming eastbound down 22nd. Cars coming eastbound on 22nd don't seem to slow down, they often come around the corner at a good speed.
 
whatchyyc said:
IMO the more confusing an intersection appears the safer, since drivers slow down. This thing looks like drivers automatically rip around the corner without checking for anyone not in a car
Click to expand...
From my experience drivers do go around that corner fast. There isn't really a way to know cyclists will be crossing their path, but instead makes it look like there is no perpendicular traffic to deal with.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top