Calgary: Cars vs Pedestrians, Cyclists and Transit

[Ramsayite]

11 Street S.W. Underpass Functional Planning Study

The City of Calgary is undertaking a functional planning study for 11 Street S.W. / CP Rail project area.

engage.calgary.ca

Love that the recommended plan is active modes only. Doubt the city will have the guts to do it though, we'll get stuck with the alternate plan.

 

[DiscoStu]

Love that the recommended plan is active modes only. Doubt the city will have the guts to do it though, we'll get stuck with the alternate plan.

As someone who lived a block away in the Beltline, and still uses that corridor (to walk, bike, drive), I disagree.

It's important that the Beltline remains accessible to all sorts of travel modes, including driving. There are only so many ways to get across the tracks and removing one option would just really congest things elsewhere for no tangible reason. That little wavy-path pseudo park is just design masturbation...nobody is going to be hanging out under a train bridge (especially when there's a real park and the riverfront so close by), and people going back and forth to the train or work want to do so in an efficient manner.

The alternate option is exactly what's needed there... efficient and dedicated lanes to walk, bike, and drive. Having options to get around, in a safe manner, is exactly what makes the Beltine a place for a wide variety of people to use.

 

[Mountain Man]

Agree completely, 11st is an important connection for cars that should be maintained. All modes is the way to go, wider sidewalks, protected bike lane and maybe 3 lanes total for traffic.

 

[haltcatchfire]

The desires of people who live in the belt line are more important than people who speed through it.

I'd guarantee Beltline residents make good use of the vehicle access in and out of their neighbourhood. I sure did when I lived there. There's no need for a sunken meandering "park" a few steps from an existing park, and two blocks from the river pathway.

 

[DiscoStu]

The desires of people who live in the belt line are more important than people who speed through it.

How does reducing travel options make life better for Beltline residents? Walking and biking would already be prioritized with the alternative option...but this way we maintain that third option, something which plenty of Beltliners themselves use.

Choice of travel is a good thing in the inner city. It allows people from all walks of life to enjoy the area....20somethings, families, commuters, seniors, disabled etc.

 

[JesseLikesCities]

You're right, when traffic starts to get backed up and there's perpetual gridlock in the core, we can just pick up all the buildings, move them back a few meters and build more lanes.

Also, can you believe all these school zones? Who cares if a few kids die, as long as my commute is fast!

You sure love your hyperbole.

 

[Chinook Arch]

You're right, when traffic starts to get backed up and there's perpetual gridlock in the core, we can just pick up all the buildings, move them back a few meters and build more lanes.

Also, can you believe all these school zones? Who cares if a few kids die, as long as my commute is fast!

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we put children’s safety at risk by having cars use 11th street. Cars have been using 11th St. for decades, all we are doing is continuing that while adding better support for pedestrians and cyclists at the same time.
I know we all would love to see a society of transit, cyclists and pedestrians only, but cars are a big part of society, and despite what people think they aren’t going away. They’re too useful.
I don’t believe the mentality of getting rid of cars is helpful or feasible, the mentality should be - maintain, but not increase the infrastructure we have for vehicles, and at the same time, increase infrastructure for transit, pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[DiscoStu]

You're right, when traffic starts to get backed up and there's perpetual gridlock in the core, we can just pick up all the buildings, move them back a few meters and build more lanes.

Also, can you believe all these school zones? Who cares if a few kids die, as long as my commute is fast!

I have no idea what any of this means. What do school zones have to do with this conversation?

 

[DiscoStu]

So maybe nobody has told you this before, but there's a certain stage in adulthood, where only being able to converse in hyperbolic sarcasm begins to reflect poorly on you, no matter what your argument is. Now maybe you haven't reached that stage (it took me well into my late 20s, although I've never been a Mensa candidate) but perhaps it's something to consider. Agree or disagree with the topic, it's all good... but let's tone down the snark and bring something tangible to the conversation.

 

[haltcatchfire]

So maybe nobody has told you this before, but there's a certain stage in adulthood, where only being able to converse in hyperbolic sarcasm begins to reflect poorly on you, no matter what your argument is. Now maybe you haven't reached that stage (it took me well into my late 20s, although I've never been a Mensa candidate) but perhaps it's something to consider. Agree or disagree with the topic, it's all good... but let's tone down the snark and bring something tangible to the conversation.

Hey now, I've made a modest living on sarcasm and snark.

 

[haltcatchfire]

So maybe nobody has told you this befroe, but there's a certain stage in human society where it's become clear that cars are a primary cause of global warming, obesity, and loneliness. Being unable to recognize that cars are a societal ill starts to reflect poorly on people, regardless of what their argument is.

Now, maybe you haven't made that realization (it took me losing my best friend to a distracted driver to understand), but perhaps it's something to consider. Agree or disagree to the topic, it's all good. But every day that we continue to prioritize car infrastructure, more people die needlessly.

So we should make routes more complicated so people have to drive more distance to where they're going, thus...well...you know the rest I hope.

 

[DiscoStu]

Hey at least there’s a kernel of an argument with the snark now. We’re making progress!

 

[Chinook Arch]

So maybe nobody has told you this befroe, but there's a certain stage in human society where it's become clear that cars are a primary cause of global warming, obesity, and loneliness. Being unable to recognize that cars are a societal ill starts to reflect poorly on people, regardless of what their argument is.

Now, maybe you haven't made that realization (it took me losing my best friend to a distracted driver to understand), but perhaps it's something to consider. Agree or disagree to the topic, it's all good. But every day that we continue to prioritize car infrastructure, more people die needlessly.

I get your point about needing to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, and I agree, 100%. I really do, but hyperbole about cars destroying everybody’s lives and the world isn’t the way to go.
People weren’t any happier in the 1800s when they didn’t have cars. Yes, cars are a big part of global warming, but only at the moment. Someday all cars will be hydrogen or electric, or solar maybe and it won’t be the same situation. As long as cars are useful to people - and they are, despite what some people might say - they will always be around.

 

[Chinook Arch]

It wasn't until ol' Mr Ford came along that people were able to leave the house.

Hyperbole aside, before cars came along people were very limited in their mobility. You could make an argument about cars causing climate change, but you can’t make an argument that having cars has made people’s lives worse, because it hasn’t. Literally nobody would ever want to go back to the old system of having to take a bus, train or a horse and carriage to get around. Absolutely nobody would choose that.

Instead of railing against the vehicles, accept that they will be around forever, and look into ways to better improve cycling and public transit, etc. and no, you don’t have to necessarily sacrifice cars to improve cycling or transit.

 

[Chinook Arch]

And yet, in the most popular and interesting cities, most people opt not to drive.

Weird eh? It's almost like you're completely wrong or something.

View attachment 524265

Those places are interesting places to visit, not to live, and they aren’t opting not to drive cars, it’s because they don’t have a choice. I’d love to live in many of those cities in the list for 6 months or a year, but you couldn’t pay me to live in those places permanently.
It’s one of the reasons people emigrate from those cities to the Houstons, Perths and LA of the world.