Cars, Pedestrians, Cyclists and Transit

[CBBarnett]

LOL it's not like eleventh street is a commuter route. It's mostly local traffic - peds, bikes, and vehicles. Investing upwards of $50 million dollars (likely higher) to make connectivity worse (ie. the "recommended" plan) is horrendous capital allocation. As a pedestrian and cyclist who uses 11 Street regularly, I'd much rather they spent ~$5 million to add a pedestrian bridge that could be used when a train is crossing and spend the rest of the money widening sidewalks, planting trees, and improving the public realm downtown.

That's kind of my point - it's probably all down to cost. The grades of a overpass will be prohibitive, but a (relatively) cheap pedestrian/bicycle underpass with a 6-metre crossing span and 3m clearance is great value as it preserves the major pedestrian routes and solves the critical pedestrian safety issues with the current setup. It doesn't solve vehicle congestion relief, but 11 Street can't do in itself nor has ever functioned to do that. It's just not important or placed correctly in the network to do so. Yes it's annoying to get stuck at a train, but it's hardly a critical backbone to the network - even less-so if the pedestrian and cycling parts of the network are improved.

That said - if the costs of my "cheap" pedestrian/bicycle underpass are expensive and bloated up unnecessarily (e.g. pathway only but design that pathway for fire trucks defeating the whole point) then we might as well do a tight all-modes underpass. Put another way, the business case for pedestrian and cycling grade-separation makes sense to me, the all-modes one does not given just how much more expensive of a project it probably is.

Best option to me, although never considered - figure out a tight 6m underpass design for pedestrians and install them as a template at every cross-street not currently connected (6th, 7th, 9th, 10th etc). Then keep 11th Street as-is at grade. Probably will be the same budget as a single all-modes underpass and offers revolutionary-levels of connectivity improvements in the city centre.

 

[Chinook Arch]

My vote is mainly on cost for the 11 Street car v. no car options - unlike almost every other project in the city's history, there's really not a convincing "need" for the vehicle access to be maintained here. Before anyone get's too excited in rebuttal - sure, it would be nice for car access to be maintained some specific routes and trips, but 11th is probably the least consequential road crossing into and out of the core for vehicles, on account it's really a short dead-end street, and has functioned with a train crossing for a century - it's simply not a major or important corridor for vehicles, nor has it ever been relied upon as one due to frequent train interference.

Due to the at-grade crossing both fire trucks and buses both don't "need" vehicle access here - again, they both operated as if this crossing didn't exist for a century. If closed to vehicles, nothing would change for their operations. If the fire department had an issue, they would have road-blocked the pedestrian-only option already, like they have on many previous road-narrowing and traffic calming projects. They didn't because the pedestrian-only option wasn't killed yet - that's our proof that fire and transit are okay without it.

So it goes to cost - if you can get a car underpass for the same price as a pedestrian-only one, go for it. If not, I don't think it's good value to add cars and the associated extra effort, depth, engineering and cost that goes with it. I get opinions are strong on this, but if there's ever a place where cars are more of a nice-to-have rather than a need-to-have project requirement it's this one. All the park stuff is a bit of distraction, it costs nothing in comparison to the grade separation but also isn't needed - a bit of red herring in all this debate IMO.

Most critically - if we do end up with the car underpass, we must avoid the very Calgary thing in over-engineering the hell out of it. a single lane, no truck access, no shoulder. Keep things tight, cheap and narrow so we don't bloat this underpass into yet another giant, expensive and redundant car circulation in our most walkable area that already has many better access points.

If we’re going to go through the cost of building an underpass we might as well add vehicle traffic to the list. The cost of any kind of underpass is going to be there either way. Why spend millions on an underpass to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists only?
I know the narrative is that cars suck and everything should be pedestrians and cyclist but that’s not the reality of it far more cars used 11th St., crossing then pedestrians or cyclists. I don’t have statistics, but I would bet vehicle traffic is about 20 times pedestrian traffic. Nobody is forcing us to choose between cars or pedestrians. There’s no reason it can’t be both.
Keep vehicle traffic to one lane each way and we should be good.

 

[CBBarnett]

If we’re going to go through the cost of building an underpass we might as well add vehicle traffic to the list. The cost of any kind of underpass is going to be there either way.
Keep it to one lane each way and we should be good.

Yeah if we can keep it tight all-modes, it'll be fine and keep the cost down. I don't have confidence we will do that, but if possible - great!

I think this has been discussed before about this project, but I can't recall the conclusions. I really don't get why this:
(1)

Should be "almost" the same price as this, (even if it's scaled down to 2 lanes only):
(2)

Seems like a far greater bridging span, far more earthmoving, extra depth means more likely utilities relocations, and complexity of engineering overall. Surely a tight option 1 is significantly cheaper than option 2?

 

[Mountain Man]

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

Not everyone who lives in the Beltline is as anti car as you.

 

[Mountain Man]

LOL it's not like eleventh street is a commuter route. It's mostly local traffic - peds, bikes, and vehicles. Investing upwards of $50 million dollars (likely higher) to make connectivity worse (ie. the "recommended" plan) is horrendous capital allocation. As a pedestrian and cyclist who uses 11 Street regularly, I'd much rather they spent ~$5 million to add a pedestrian bridge that could be used when a train is crossing and spend the rest of the money widening sidewalks, planting trees, and improving the public realm downtown.

11th is a pretty important commuter street, it provides easy access to both 6th and 5th ave. Lots of traffic coming into downtown will use 11th to get to 5th and lots of westbound traffic on 12th uses 11th to get to Bow Trail.

I used to use the bike lanes on 11th all the time and had too many close calls with angry drivers trying to cut around people turning. Walking to the train from the Beltline wasn't much better, narrow sidewalks and a really long wait for the river of traffic heading into downtown. So something needs to happen, and other modes need to get some of the space cars typically use, but traffic can't be cut off, 14th and 8th would be crippled!

 

[Mountain Man]

I absolutely think you're wrong, no question.

 

[CBBarnett]

11th is a pretty important commuter street, it provides easy access to both 6th and 5th ave. Lots of traffic coming into downtown will use 11th to get to 5th and lots of westbound traffic on 12th uses 11th to get to Bow Trail.

But that's the part that's not changing - 11th Street N of 9th Ave stays the same under any scenario. Any 9th Avenue traffic heading to 6th or 5th Ave would have the same travel pattern.

Correct me if I am not interpreting you correctly - Because 12th Avenue is EB, I think you mean WB 11th Avenue traffic is using 11th Street NB to get to Bow Trail? Why wouldn't they continue on 11th Avenue all the way to Crow/Bow interchange rather than take all the non-favouring signal delays that exist on 11th Street today?

Again, I totally see how some specific trips would use 11th Street - or any street for that matter - but for major commuter flows coming into and out of the downtown I just don't buy it (for the section that crosses the CPR tracks in question here).

 

[Chinook Arch]

Yeah if we can keep it tight all-modes, it'll be fine and keep the cost down. I don't have confidence we will do that, but if possible - great!

I think this has been discussed before about this project, but I can't recall the conclusions. I really don't get why this:
(1)
View attachment 524633

Should be "almost" the same price as this, (even if it's scaled down to 2 lanes only):
(2)
View attachment 524634

Seems like a far greater bridging span, far more earthmoving, extra depth means more likely utilities relocations, and complexity of engineering overall. Surely a tight option 1 is significantly cheaper than option 2?

It would be more expensive to add cars, just a matter of how much more expensive. It should also be cheaper than 4th street as there would only be one vehicle lane each way. At some point I imagine there will be costs that can be used for comparisons.

 

[Chinook Arch]

In what way am I wrong?

How about, I'll share some of my fundamental beliefs that inform my policy preferences. You can let me know where you find issue.

- Cars are major contributor of climate change. The reliance on them for personal mobility is unsustainable.
- Driving a car regularly is bad for a human's health. Governments should encourage active mobility as it reduces healthcare costs
- Car-centric infrastructure creates bad urban environments. Beyond the safety issues, being around high volume roads is unpleasant and damaging to a local economy.
- Car-centric infrastructure does not scale well and is expensive. Constant repaving and expansions are a poor investment by cities
- Cars are killing more and more people, largely due to the rise of SUVs and Trucks as preferred vehicles. The best way to stop this trend is by limiting the number of cars on the road.

Which of the above do you disagree with? I'm happy to share clarifications or sources if you request.

If your response is "Those are all true, but it's worth it because it's convenient", I guess we just have very different value structures.

Your argument is more about cars in general, and is very generalized. There's a big difference between that and whether to maintain an already existing road like 11th street, and is a whole other conversation.

- Cars are major contributor of climate change. -True, cars of today are contributors to climate change, but that's the cars of today, not cars of the future.

- The reliance on them for personal mobility is unsustainable. - For the cars of today, but not for cars of the future.

- Driving a car regularly is bad for a human's health. Governments should encourage active mobility as it reduces healthcare costs - Not always. You're making assumptions. You can drive a car and still walk and cycle, or do other healthy things. People who cycle or walk can also do other things that aren't healthy. It's not a rule that applies to everyone, as everyone's saturation is different.

- Car-centric infrastructure creates bad urban environments. - I won't argue with that.

- Beyond the safety issues, being around high volume roads is unpleasant and damaging to a local economy. - . What part of the economy is being damaged? Are you talking the economy of Calgary or a neighborhood in Calgary?

- Car-centric infrastructure does not scale well and is expensive. Constant repaving and expansions are a poor investment by cities - I won't argue that, but for all the thousands of kilometers of paved road in the city, one underpass a block long isn't going to make a difference. The cars that would be using it, would ending up driving a different route.

- Cars are killing more and more people, largely due to the rise of SUVs and Trucks as preferred vehicles. The best way to stop this trend is by limiting the number of cars on the road. - In a an ideal world, yes, simply stop using cars and problem solved. 300 pedestrian deaths are year solved by not having anyone drive anymore. Meanwhile thousands die from all kinds of other causes. Do we just ban everything?

Look I'm not a big proponent of driving and I don't a drive ton. I do a lot of walking and manage to do some cycling, and I would love to see better infrastructure for cycling and pedestrians. We all would, but draconian measures like erasing cars from the map aren't going to work, you're never going to win that battle. Cars are never ever going away. Gas powered cars will, but vehicles will always be around in some form. As I mentioned before, virtually nobody would ever go back to a society without cars, that's never happening.

 

[Mountain Man]

^Pretty much what my response was going to be.

 

[whatchyyc]

In what way am I wrong?

How about, I'll share some of my fundamental beliefs that inform my policy preferences. You can let me know where you find issue.

- Cars are major contributor of climate change. The reliance on them for personal mobility is unsustainable.
- Driving a car regularly is bad for a human's health. Governments should encourage active mobility as it reduces healthcare costs
- Car-centric infrastructure creates bad urban environments. Beyond the safety issues, being around high volume roads is unpleasant and damaging to a local economy.
- Car-centric infrastructure does not scale well and is expensive. Constant repaving and expansions are a poor investment by cities
- Cars are killing more and more people, largely due to the rise of SUVs and Trucks as preferred vehicles. The best way to stop this trend is by limiting the number of cars on the road.

Which of the above do you disagree with? I'm happy to share clarifications or sources if you request.

If your response is "Those are all true, but it's worth it because it's convenient", I guess we just have very different value structures.

You pretty much said it yourself, "Car-centric" infrastructure
Cars and car access existing at all doesn't mean car-centrism, as many are aware Hoboken, NJ has had zero traffic deaths since 2017 yet cars are still allowed everywhere. You don't have to completely be rid of vehicles, encouraging other modes and implementing safe street design makes a massive difference while still maintaining access because cars are in fact Convenient! Or else why would we be in this situation in the first place...

 

[CBBarnett]

It would be more expensive to add cars, just a matter of how much more expensive. It should also be cheaper than 4th street as there would only be one vehicle lane each way. At some point I imagine there will be costs that can be used for comparisons.

I wouldn't imagine it would be - but doesn't seem to be a lot of information out there that really compares what we we are talking about. Here's another example, from an ongoing grade-separation project in Toronto where they have replaced a minor all-modes at-grade crossing with a pedestrian/bike only underpass. It's context is different in that they are choosing to elevate the commuter rail line for a significant stretch, but some elements of the design are notable in that it's just simple, narrow, and with minimum fussiness. For an expensive project, it's a cheap benefit to get. Something like that on 11th (or anywhere we need pedestrian access) would be preferred.

Cars are never ever going away. Gas powered cars will, but vehicles will always be around in some form. As I mentioned before, virtually nobody would ever go back to a society without cars, that's never happening.

I dislike the name of this thread because it asked the wrong question and makes it a matter of modes "versus" each other - I agree it's unlikely we will ever not see cars disappear, however that's not the important question to debate. It's "where can we be far more honest about where cars make sense and where they don't". The default position by many in these debates is all bad or we should be able to drive anywhere, in as little time as possible, with free parking, and fast congestion free lanes. It's a great dream that doesn't exist outside of small towns, let alone a rapidly growing centre of a major city with a increasingly pedestrian-dominated centre city.

My whole position on 11th Street is that in this context, in a growing city, in the most walkable part of that city, that's increasingly urban, I think we can all live with reduced car access for this one block here if we save 10s of millions of capital. Maintaining pedestrian access is the more critical mode here. For cars, there's multiple redundant routes nearby so access isn't really being lost - we aren't closing Deerfoot or even 9th Avenue here. It's a minor street in the network. However, if the cost savings are minor - who cares, go with all modes - respecting that it's still a minor street in a walkable area. Keep that design lean, tight and cheap with a focus on pedestrians.

More broadly, we should really be starting to think more holistically about cars in the urban areas of the city. They rarely need to be banned from a street, but we can definitely start acknowledging that there's far better and more important investments we should be making rather than ever more car mobility - minor in this case - in the inner city.

Overall, I'd like to see far greater emphasis in the inner city that car throughput and volumes aren't the goal on every street, in every context. We are slowly chipping away at that expectation, but have a long way to go.

 

[Mountain Man]

You don't come across as a troll, you just have a singular perspective and seem unwilling to see it any other way. I think everyone on here has a pretty good grasp of the downsides of a very car centric city, we just think it's unreasonable to dictate to everyone who wants to drive. Improvements need to be made to accommodate all modes of travel that we have ignored for so long, but cutting off roads won't help anyone.

 

[Mountain Man]

But that's the part that's not changing - 11th Street N of 9th Ave stays the same under any scenario. Any 9th Avenue traffic heading to 6th or 5th Ave would have the same travel pattern.

Correct me if I am not interpreting you correctly - Because 12th Avenue is EB, I think you mean WB 11th Avenue traffic is using 11th Street NB to get to Bow Trail? Why wouldn't they continue on 11th Avenue all the way to Crow/Bow interchange rather than take all the non-favouring signal delays that exist on 11th Street today?

Again, I totally see how some specific trips would use 11th Street - or any street for that matter - but for major commuter flows coming into and out of the downtown I just don't buy it (for the section that crosses the CPR tracks in question here).

Yeah 11th, not 12ave. And there are a ton of commuters who turn at 11th, the interchange at crow / bow is like 8 blocks further. If you don't hit a train, 11st is much faster. Also the whole interchange at crow / bow on 10Ave can be ridiculous, especially the Crowchild part. Anyway, stuff like this is about having a couple options, having a single route just leads to problems.

 

[AJX]

I dislike the name of this thread because it asked the wrong question and makes it a matter of modes "versus" each other - I agree it's unlikely we will ever not see cars disappear, however that's not the important question to debate. It's "where can we be far more honest about where cars make sense and where they don't". The default position by many in these debates is all bad or we should be able to drive anywhere, in as little time as possible, with free parking, and fast congestion free lanes. It's a great dream that doesn't exist outside of small towns, let alone a rapidly growing centre of a major city with a increasingly pedestrian-dominated centre city.

I think the title of the thread is based more on nature of the conversation before the posts were moved to this thread. Lol