The regional pathway south of Glenmore trail at Crowchild Trail. It seems that the middle of the pathway IS a good place to tie-down power pole cables...so long as you use some solid steel bars to prevent cyclists and inline skaters from running into them!
Same place as previous. It is always convenient when one is asked to dismount from their bike to walk accross a bridge. In my personal opinion it definitely shortens my travel time and makes me feel like cyclists are accommodated.
Downtown at 3rd avenue and 8th street SW. This has always been one of my favorite to cite as an example of pathway-roadway junctions not accommodating cyclists. As a cyclist, it's pretty much a free-for-all, which can be a good thing in some situations. Problem is, motorists and pedestrians perceive cyclists as behaving "eratically" when in reality it's only because there's no indication of what rules we are supposed to follow. It doesn't help that the sharp curb makes navigating this junction difficult (distracted attention). Ultimately, it doesn't really reflect that cyclists are vehicles.
On page 22 of the 2011 Cycling Strategy the bike lane on 53rd Street NW, established in 2005, is cited as the City's first. While the estabishment of the first bike lane may be a milestone to celebrate this party may be a bit premature. The problem with this bike lane is that it suffers from some confusion. It really doesn't know whether it is a bike lane or a parking lane. This probably wouldn't be the type of bike lane that would make a family bike ride enjoyable. According to the City they cannot enforce no parking in this lane unless it is specifically designated a no-parking zone. So, is it a bike lane or a parking lane?
Sidewalks as Bike Paths
Submitted by mikewarren on
Instead of getting rid of "sidewalks as bike infrastructure" idea, the City seems intent on building more of these. In general -- besides the good reasons it's illegal to ride on sidewalks -- this sends a mixed, confused message to both motorists and cyclists; are we allowed on sidewalks? Is that were we "belong"?
Some examples:
Charleswood Drive from Northmount to Crowchild crosses *twelve* cross-streets or alleys in the few blocks it covers. They ripped out a cement sidewalk to do this. There are also two bus stops. On top of that, it's on the "wrong" side as it's most convenient for downhill (eastbound) cyclists to use it. Instead, using some of the ample City-owned boulevard space to build bike lanes (as per the 2006 plan) would have been far, far better. (This was *just* done, as part of the U of C area "infrastructure" improvements).
10th Street NW is confusing: where does it start/stop? It's not even on the online pathways map at all.
14th Street has a sidewalk-cum-pathway right in front of people's houses (north of John Laurie). It's also on the "wrong" side (downhill cyclists are on the wrong side of the road with limited opportunities to get on the road). After crossing a blind alley and road, you're expected to cross at the crosswalk and continue on path-which-should-be-sidewalk now on the "correct" (right) side of the road. Uphill, same issues, except you're also supposed to magically know to get off Northmount (or wherever) and head up the sidewalk (paved) before it becomes pathway. At least there's now pathway south of here paralleling 14th to give you a hint. Walkers have no alternatives but to dodge the cyclists.
In "greenfield" development land, 12 Mile Coulee has been a decently-popular country-ish road for a while. Instead of making the new 4-lane road with wide outside lanes (as per City policy, allegedly for the last two budgets) they made 4 narrow lanes and put a pathway on one side of the road (where a sidewalk should be). To make matters worse, getting off this at Crowchild/1A takes you just far enough down the exit lane so you can't see back over your shoulder past the high fence and also motorists can't quite see you any longer -- plus they're trying to hit 80km to merge onto the 1A. Disaster waiting to happen. I have no idea what they envision southbound cyclists doing (as they'll probably hit the lights doing 40-60km/h)
24th Avenue by the University gets the same treatment. 24th is actually a decent road to ride on despite a total lack of accommodation -- slowly widening it as funding came up to accommodate a bike lane (or wide outside lane) would make it awesome.
Pathway/Sidewalks
Submitted by bclark on
The photos of the pathways running in place of sidewalks offer an interesting perspective on the problem with this type of infrastructure. While I would happily suggest it is a good place for a very slow meandering family bike ride it is by no means an ideal place for cycle commuting at any rate of speed.
My first thought was, 'wow, if I lived there I'd sure be concerned about cyclists or inline skaters coming by at high speed'. The other concern is, with all the road crossings, how does this make for an efficient route if one has to dismount every time they need to cross a street? The third concern is, how does a cyclist transition from the pathway to the road? This leaves the cyclists with having to take the road, which isn't really a problem, aside from the fact that motorists may frown moreso than usual on the cyclist on the grounds that there is (in their opionion) a perfectly good pathway right beside the road. That doesn't even get into what you mentioned about the confusion of the rights for cyclists to be on the sidewalks (er...I mean pathways!).
Ultimately it may be cheaper to build asphalt pathways than concrete sidewalks so cost-wise this may not be too much of an issue. The big problem is still the fact that the needs of the "transportation cyclist" are not really being addressed.
For the kids
Submitted by winterrider on
I always assume that these are targeted at children and new cyclists who should not be on busy roads. I agree that it would be nice to have decent on street accommodations as well, but I imagine would I want my kids riding on a sidewalk style bike path or on 14th st, and I'm ok with these paths. Certainly when I have the kiddie trailer on my bike I prefer the sidewalks already, knowing I have to slow down and be ready to stop at every street/driveway.
For myself, I'll just ride on the roads if the paths are inconvenient.
I think the key still education. Yes it sends a mixed message, and that is why we need more education.
I agree, but...
Submitted by mikewarren on
...I don't think these are "for the kids". The Brentwood/U of C area "upgrades" very clearly targeted commuter cycling improvements, and the planners touted the "regional pathway" as part of this (despite the 2001-era plan calling for a bike lane all along 32nd). The same thing is happening in "greenfield" development like 12 Mile Coulee (no on-street, only sidewalk-bike-path), along Symon's Valley (no bike lane/wide outside lane only a sidewalk "regional pathway") and many others.
Further, ongoing "North Hill" cycling improvements are taking the same approach, funneling 10th Street cyclists onto the west-side sidewalk for three blocks and the last block from Northmount/10th intersection to 14th Street (where I suspect you're expected to use the pedestrian crossing to get onto the sidewalk-bike-path on the west side).
A pathway built last year where 32nd meets Home Road does the same thing (i.e. rips up sidewalk to replace with pathway). Where the 2001-era plan calls for bike lanes down all the new parts of Country Hills Blvd, we instead have pathway down some of it (and it waffles on which side of the road to follow to make it worse). You're going to hit 40km/h with NO problem on that bit, either direction, and I personally wouldn't want cyclists ripping down the path if I lived there.
Since kids are allowed to ride on the sidewalk anyway, I don't see the point of ripping up perfectly good cement sidewalks to replace them with asphalt (or, even worse, the shitty rubber mat-things they used on 32nd near U of C).
It is my opinion that this further entrenches the (dangerous) belief that cyclists belong on the sidewalk; it's illegal for good reasons, let's not get MORE people riding on the sidewalk! (Or, more likely, more non-cyclists believing that's what you *should* be doing).
To me, it looks like these bike-paths-on-sidewalks are what the Transportation Department sees as the future. At the very least, the two most-recent projects make heavy use of them. There's a LOOOOONG way to go: the other favourite seems to be door-zone bike lanes.
Systemic issue
Submitted by fixmtl on
These look like one of those "systemic" issues we were talking about the other day. You might want to add them to the list! -S
thanks
Submitted by mikewarren on
I did.
Bridges
Submitted by mikewarren on
Those sharp-corner bridges (further example, the one over 16th near Motel Village) just *barely* allow a one-kid chariot to make the turn. Haven't tried with a wider one, but please build more bridges like the one over Memorial near the Bow River and Crowchild, which is great and actually curves more-or-less like you'd want to ride!
Bridges
Submitted by Tandemcaptain on
Tandem riders can't negotiate those sharp-cornered bridges either.
Double trailer hangup
Submitted by DD on
I got caught/stuck more than once in my double Chariot days on tight cornered on ramps, places that I managed with a single. They're also a pain with an Xtracycle. The real trailer show stopper though is when you get to the bridge and discover it is stairs with a bike wheel channel on one side.
bike wheel channels
Submitted by mikewarren on
...yeah, those things are hilarious since you can't get your bars flat beside the railing anyway.
The other annoyance with Chariots are the "please now hop this square curb" areas (e.g. end of the new path below the cliffs in Sunnyside, or at 17th and *just* east of Crowchild). Not a showstopper, of course, but still.
See this thread on square-curb policy.
Wide Outside Lanes
Submitted by mikewarren on
Where are they? For years, the City has been claiming that all new "collector" roads would be getting wide outside lanes (with bike stencils). I haven't seen any new such roads get this treatment. New roads built (or re-built) since I was told this include:
* Old Banff Coach above Cougar Ridge
* 12 Mile Coulee
* parts of Burma Road near Symon's Valley
* Symon's Valley
* (parts of) Tuscany Blvd NW (now only Stoney Trail crossing between 1A and Nose Hill).
* Country Hills Blvd (west of Stoney Trail) (not sure if this counts as "collector")
* 17th Avenue SW around 85th Street
* ...others?...
I see that my links to calgary.ca have now all been broken, and they've removed any mention of wide outside lanes except for a proposed 4th street underpass.
Junction of 3rd Ave & 8th Street
Submitted by bclark on
In regards to the photo posted about the junction at 3rd and 8th, I spoke to a representative of Parks and they said Roads is supposed to address the curb at the pathway junction. He was not sure what the timing of the enhancement would be nor the details of what it would look like other than he understood it would be a dropped curb. Provisions for signage were not addressed.
Put 3rd Avenue & 8th Street into the Hall of Shame
Submitted by gyrospanner on
Unfortunatly it gets to go there based on cyclists' bad behaviour. I ride it every day and it's an accident waiting to happen.
People heading east in the morning don't really slow down too much and they generally jump off the curb onto the road. The problem is
1) that the cars heading south are not visible to a cyclist until the last minute (seconds really?) because of the bush you see on the left side of the picture above,
2) there is a lot of traffic heading north, which usually turns east (congestion!), and
3) a lot of pedestrians also use that pathway and the crosswalk in that intersection.
So, that's the Field of Play. Here's the game - cyclists are
1) jumping the curb (of which I'm sometimes guilty of, but only after slowing down and checking VERY CAREFULLY for traffic), or
2) using the small ramps on the right and left sides to filter through there.
I've seen cyclists take the right ramp (into the crosswalk) and sort of "force" traffic to treat them as pedestrians (a game I wouldn't play).
I've also seen cyclists take the left ramp when there are cars turning east so that they can go up the wrong side of the road and filter back into the proper lane when the car has passed. Another game I won't play.
I wouldn't think any bad thoughts on the City if they put a "Cyclists Dismount" sign there, or a STOP sign, as if you lose at any of those games you will be at fault!
I am waaaiiting for the City to finish that Peace Bridge and I won't frequent that intersection any more!
terrible
Submitted by RichieRich on
whomever "designed" this "repair" job obviously didn't realize the user base or location. A simple visit to the location during any time of day would have easily clarified and solved basic design considerations. City of Calgary should be ashamed of this bad one.
The first time I saw the "completed" work I audibly remarked "WTF" followed very quickly with wondering how long until there are significant user conflicts. Do things right the first time, and it saves time cost and frustration. I try not to even use this entry to the pathway system now and instead go 1 block north (less traffic).
3rd Ave and 8th street
Submitted by billrennie on
After removing the curb, I'd suggest making it a 4 way stop including a bike stop sign for those of us who head east on third from the path system....
better yet
Submitted by mikewarren on
...a traffic circle.
How about .....
Submitted by gyrospanner on
An Overpass!!!!
HAH!!!!
Brent & Mike
Submitted by gyrospanner on
Good Initiative on throwing some pictures up (both the good and bad). It has made me stop and think a little more about some of these spots and others!
Cheers
intension
Submitted by mikewarren on
The goal of these two threads is to gather good examples to present to the City (in a more cohesive fashion than this) as to the direction bikecalgary wants them to head. Therefore the "bad" examples especially need a "how to do it better" explanation.
Pathway Deterioration
Submitted by bclark on
There has been a lot of talk about integrating cycling infrastructure with transit, specifically at LRT stations. This has been a hot-topic for the SW leg of the LRT in particular. Here is an example of pathway infrastructure leading up to another LRT station, in this case Franklin Station. The photo was taken looking eastbound roughly parallel to Memorial Drive NE, just after Barlow Trail and was snapped when I had to run an errand up that direction. The pathway is obviously in pretty rough shape and signage is mostly minimal so I had to keep my fingers crossed that I could get where I needed to be.
Curb Ramps
Submitted by mikewarren on
From this thread it seems at least some City employees believe there's a policy against putting curb ramps on pathway entrances (lest those crazy cyclists take too much speed onto the street). Here is an example from Confederation Park which *just* got re-paved but they failed to fix the curb ramp.
(The real reason the probably didn't do the curb ramp is more that they were doing asphalt at the time, not cement work...HOWEVER, they are doing curb work just a couple blocks away for the "North Hill Area" bike improvements.)
This goes hand-in-hand with the almost universally terrible road <--> pathway connections in general. Usually, pathways simply end and you get to invent something confusing to everyone for how to transition to the road.
It's Parks vs Roads again.
Submitted by chrisguy on
Parks can't color outside the lines. Their mandate ends with the path, and the sidewalk's owned by Roads.
There's a similar thing at 8th Street, where Parks recently paved that goat trail leaving the pathway east of the 10th St LRT Bridge. The new path is misaligned with the existing curb ramp. Dwayne Sutherland (Parks) told me Roads needs to now rebuild the curb ramp to suit the new path.
Beats me why the pathway couldn't just align with the existing curb ramp.
confed park curbs
Submitted by seanyyc on
And even more fun, the ground on the "grass-side" of the curb has sunken in many areas around here, making jumping the curb on 25th Ave in that area extra fun (though mostly east of this photo).
I usually just use that driveway you can see there. Convenient. Not all path-ends have that option though.
mchugh bluff
Submitted by mikewarren on
Slightly less-recent example in McHugh Bluff (I filed a 311 request for this).
As a bonus, you're allowed to park right in front of it, too...
I finally reported this using
Submitted by Fuzz on
I finally reported this using the new mapping report system yesturday, someone called me today and said they are trying to get roads to take care of it. Here's hoping!
This is for the first location, at Confederation park...
On-street hazards
Submitted by DarrenB on
I know this thread states it is for pathways, but I'll throw in an on-street issue as well (we can split the thread later, if necessary).
The City recently put in bike lanes around the UofC as part of a big mobility plan for UofC/Brentwood areas. There has been a bit of discussion about the value of these lanes (e.g., they demonstrate some commitment to cyclists in terms of resources spent). However, I think the lanes were poorly designed and the southbound lane in particular represents a liability to cyclists rather than an improvement.
See photos and a video below for what's wrong: essentially, the bike lane is too narrow and it is IMMEDIATELY adjacent to parked vehicles (i.e. puts cyclists in the potentially fatal door zone). In fact, as you can see below, the parking lane was painted so narrow that larger vehicles don't even fit, even when they are parked right to the curb, meaning that they actually stick out into the bike lane.
I see two problems here. First, cyclists are corralled into one of the most dangerous zones on the street, so if you do ride in the bike lane, you are greatly increasing your risk of injury. Second, if you choose NOT to use the bike lane, now motorists will become upset with you because you are CHOOSING to ignore the bike lane and ride in their space instead, and frankly I wouldn't blame them for not understanding why.
This street is just too narrow to accommodate two safe bike lanes, and competent planners should have known this. Sharrows, share the road signs, and lots of bike signs to alert motorists that they should share the road would have been much more safe and practical. Then at least cyclists could occupy the safe space toward the edge of the road without motorist backlash.
Here is a look:
+1
Submitted by mikewarren on
Totally agree.
Yes, lets not limit this thread to "pathways" -- on-street infrastructure issues also, please!
Protecting parked cars
Submitted by fixmtl on
This is a good example of what Jan Gehl talked about - "using cyclists to protect parked cars"!
I've seen narrower streets than this with bike lanes that work. The parked cars could be used as a buffer to protect cyclists (e.g. Boyer street in Montreal).
I'm also concerned about motorist backlash when cyclists decide not to use the infrastructure. It will be a big challenge as they build the infrastructure since the "strong & fearless" will likely not use it - because they don't need it. The infrastructure is aimed primarily at getting more people on their bike. It will be a bonus for some of the current cyclists but they shouldn't be (as far as I'm concerned) the main target.
Backlash
Submitted by mikewarren on
Yes, that's one of my main concerns with this sort of thing -- if you can't get rid of the parking (here, probably a tough sell) then use Sharrows. It still says "bikes belong here" without saying precisely where. I don't know if riding on the right side would be better (if that's what you mean by "buffer to protect cyclists") -- you lose space to dodge opening doors, and passengers are much less likely (I think) to glance in the mirror before kicking the door open. At least, I am.
I also think removing the center-line might help (although this is probably "illegal" according to road construction guidelines) as then cars seem much more willing to give you more space. I've seen drivers try really hard to pass me "nicely" (e.g. creeping by a few km's/h faster than me) but just won't go over the center-line.
I don't know what the
Submitted by fixmtl on
I don't know what the guidelines are for centerlines. I guess they have a variety of street classes or types.
Here's what I meant by "bike lane separated from the road by parked cars and bollards". [I don't think bi-directional bike lanes are a good idea but that's another debate.]
And here's the one on Rachel St. (curb [not everywhere] + parked cars [depending on the time of the day] + bollards; not applicable on Charleswood Dr. because of roadway width):
I'm not saying that we put these all over the place. They don't always make sense. But they have their function.
Thread
Submitted by fixmtl on
I would say let's not limit this thread to pathways. When we're ready to report on this, let's break it down into 3 categories:
1) Pathways (Parks)
2) On-Street (Transportation/Roads)
3) Junctions/lack of connectivity (Both)
The essence of my arguements
Submitted by bclark on
If cyclists are to be recognized and treated as vehicles then the infrastructure must be set up to reflect such. For example there must be a design guide that categorically states that pathway-roadway junction be designed and signed for cyclists as vehicles. Further, the City must make one department responsible for such. This goes for sidewalk/pathways as well. The City must get straight that these cause confusion and really are not efficient for transportation cyclists. They must come clear on exactly who they are aiming to serve by building such infrastructure. I too share the concern that cyclists avoiding bike lanes due to lack of safety will irritate motorists if they don't understand the reason for cyclists doing so. There was an example of this year in the legacy trail from Banff to Canmore. A cyclist got chided for riding the highway (big wide shoulder) when there is a trail right beside. The cyclist was training and felt she would be too fast for the trail.
Bike streetlights
Submitted by fixmtl on
There are a number of examples of good pathway-roadway junctions in Montreal. When I'm there in September I could take a few pictures.
Sometimes when a cycle track (physically separated bike lane) or a pathway intersects with a road there are bicycle streetlights (e.g. Parc and des Pins). This is mentioned in the Cycling Strategy (Recommendation C19).
An inconvenience not much longer, hopefully
Submitted by sherryrunswest on
OK, this isn't quite a 'pathway' inconvenience but it is a link to the pathway system that has been missing since they started the West LRT construction...
I was curious as to when the pedestrian bridge over Bow Trail (at 24th Street) will be open for use as the structure is now over Bow Trail. This is the response from the West LRT contact.
"Crews are working to open the bridge in late 2011. The major impact to this opening schedule is whether they can pave the bridge before the cold weather sets in. Bridge asphalt is more weather sensitive than road asphalt so if there is a substantially cold fall or if the bridge deck is not ready for paving until later in the fall, it may not open until spring 2012 when the temperatures get a bit higher.
Regardless, the contractor is going to work on the bridge to get it open this fall."
2 missing SE pathway chunks
Submitted by chaingunsofdoom on
Ever since the Douglasdale construction took away the tiny goat path option of getting past Quarry Park to Riverbend, I've tried various ways to/from Downtown to McKenzie.
The detour sign on the fence as you drive south along the path says to 'Detour using 18th St SE' (and then there are no more signs to be seen), but that pathway between Riverbend and Quarry Park has around 50 feet of asphalt missing. A nice 4-inch drop-off to gravel. I called this one into 311 way back in May(?). Still nothing happening as of last week.
Last week, I found another chunk of pathway missing along 24th St SE (there is a path along there) before you get to 18th St SE/107th Ave SE. This one was around 40 feet. Do the guys who were paving run out and just stop? I am mystified. Still need to call that one in with 311...
Oh, and calling 311 regarding sweeping was fun. Took 20 mins to get a report filed for the sidewalk on the Glenmore Trail bridge over the Bow. They always need an address!
Missing link
Submitted by fastlayne on
The missing pavement between Quarry Park and Riverbend was dug up by the developer, call Remington.
The missing patch on 24th Street is from when the hill slid inot the Inland Concrete Pipe yard.
These are minor issues really, I just want the path to be re-opened along the bird sanctuary.
Sharp Corner Bridges
Submitted by bclark on
Previously sharp corner pathway overpasses had been discussed as inconveniences in both this forum and in the Hall of Fame, where the recently built pathway overpass over Memorial Drive east of Crowchild Trail NW had been discussed.
Here is an example from near Deerfoot Trail and Memorial Drive NW showing a sharp-cornered pathway overpass. Definitely it creates a situation where navigating corners is difficult, particularly if there are multiple users on the overpass. While it is unlikely these will be replaced anytime soon citing these as an example of what not to do is good to have going forward.
I just about bit it
Submitted by gyrospanner on
On the pathway corner (lower ight hand side of picture) itself one day. It was muddy and I was going too fast coming off the hill as I needed some speed to go up the bridge as I was going south. Part my fault for going too fast, but I blame some of it on an inconvenient layout, which I would accuse half of it being natural and the other half man-made.
Definitely a nasty corner
Submitted by bclark on
Ouch...yeah, I noticed the dirt at the corner there and thought how nasty it would be when wet. Definitely does not enhance the safety of the design.
Pathway Crossings
Submitted by bclark on
Discussion had also occured around pathway crossing of roadways.
Here is an example in Silver Springs at Silver Spring Road NW. Should a cyclist dismount and walk across treating this as a pedestrian crossing as the overhead sign indicates? Could a cyclist alternatively treat it as a road crossing where the pathway is deemed the lesser road and proceed astride their bike only if the coast is clear? This would be similar to the situation of crossing a road between two back lanes but obviously creates the problem that motorists are going to probably be confused and treat the cyclist as a pedestrian. In the Netherlands, supposedly, cyclists would have right-of-way at such a crossing.
Here is another example from Dalhousie at Dalhousie Drive NW. In this case there is really no proper crossing for cyclists. Technically cyclists should dismount at the sidewalk, walk to the pedestrian crossing at the next intersection east or the lights at the intersection west, cross the road and then walk the opposite sidewalk to the pathway on the other side before remounting. The total distance walking is about 120m, which isn't much but definitely adds an extra inconvenience. Obviously this also adds distance for pedestrians as well.
Solutions. Extend ROW to cyclists at mid-block pathway crossings and sign such junctions appropriately. Build proper pathway crossings at all mid-block pathway junctions. Both solutions will enhance the attractiveness of active transportation.
Bike Lane Markings
Submitted by bclark on
Item C29 of the Cycling Strategy calls for "Maintain bicycle route pavement markings and signs". This is good news given the state of the 10th Avenue SW bike route. For a time there were sharrows indicating the bike route near the curb lane but these have long-since vanished. I was really taken back by the number of vehicles treating the parking lane/"bike area" as a through lane, i.e. effectively creating two westbound lanes even though the road is only marked as a two lane road (one each direction). Definitely the current state of infrastructure does not encourage cycling here. Here's a question. How many dedicated bike lanes are there into and out of the City core? I think this is one place that could benefit from bike lanes similar to the new 52nd St NW bike lane.
Pathway Alignments
Submitted by bclark on
As we all know the pathways are multiuse and this can result in "conflict". Cyclists obviously use the pathways for transport as much as for recreation and, as such, it is important that the pathways allow for efficient and safe travel. One of the key ways to ensure safety is to build pathways with good sight lines so that pathway users have plenty of lead time to react to hazards ahead. This example is from Bowmont and is a new alignment in response to river bank erosion on the orginal alignment (dirt trail to left):
The new alignment was built with a grade change and sharp corner at an area where the vegetation obstructs one's view. This definitely does not enhance the safety of pathway users when compared to the orginal alignment. The Pathway Safety Review Report does have recommendations to address such hazards so hopefully we can look forward to better aligned pathways in the future.
10th St NW bike lanes
Submitted by seanyyc on
The new bike lanes on 10th St. NW looks like it might be brewing up a problem. The preliminary paint marking is down, but not a day goes by I see multiple people driving in the parking/bike lane. Of course these areas were previously the second driving lane, but really does no one pay attention?
I suppose it will have to wait until the final markings are painted to see if this continues.
by 20th avenue
Submitted by mikewarren on
...you should check out the "bus stop chicane to road back to sidewalk" ridiculousness they've dreamed up. I really need to go take a picture of this, but you can see the plan at calgary.ca until the link breaks.
Challenge
Submitted by bclark on
It will be an interesting challenge for northbound cyclists travelling from the dual-direction pathway on the west side of 10th St NW onto the uni-directional bikeway on the east side of 10th St at 23rd Ave. I'm guessing this may be one of those situations where commuter cyclists tend to just stick to the roadway south of 23rd?
23rd and 10th St
Submitted by amf673 on
I turn left from 23rd Ave onto 10 St NW (southbound) every day. The bit of MUP between 23 and 21 (which is meant to be
an East-West route, and it is OK except for crossing 14 ST) is useless for me. I continue south on 10th, so why make the detour? Going northbound, it would be ridiculous to try to use it.
really?
Submitted by mikewarren on
Ah, so you mean you're only supposed to use the sidewalk if you're going south on 10th in order to go west on 21st?!
Why not just make one bikelane that's also usable for southbound cyclists? Very confusing to me...
They also just paved over a grassy bit between the existing sidewalk and the road -- so they could have moved the curb over instead, especially since they just spent a month in the area fixing up curbs (and are now repaving just about every road).
20th Ave and 10th St.
Submitted by seanyyc on
(@mikewarren - obviously didn't respond to the thread correctly)
I'll take a look tonight. I honestly haven't gone south of 23rd ave. on 10th St. since they started the construction, but I use northbound 10th after 23rd Ave regularly (turning right -- with the new bike lane and the bus stop right there has the makings of an interesting winter).
The whole thing looks more confusing than just using the old roadway, but will have to see once it's done (or I have time to pick through that planning doc).
The problem with bike lanes in the door zone
Submitted by winterrider on
I'm posting this here as there has been some discussion of bike lanes in the door zone.
This is a video of a cyclist being doored. It is not pleasant viewing, but should probably be mandatory viewing for anyone who is in any way involved in on street bicycle infrastructure in Calgary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y_bPhbZnks
Hopefully some of you can use this to help improve our options here in Calgary.
Hmmm
Submitted by mercator on
'This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.
Sorry about that.'
It was that bad huh?
Nuts!
Submitted by winterrider on
That's too bad. There is no gore but its clearly a bad hit. The video is shot with a dashboard cam in a car who just happened to catch a dooring at the perfect time to frame it dead center.
The cyclist bounces off the door into the street and the car has to slow and swerve to avoid running them over. It looks like a bad hit but I've no idea what the aftermath was.
Here's a repost:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sL2Stqdgl8&feature=youtu.be
I really do think this would be useful when trying to explain to the city why we dislike some of these lanes. If anyone knows how to rip a youtube video I think it would be worthwhile.
Good fo.llowup
Submitted by winterrider on
Here's a nice video showing where it is safe to ride to avoid dooring. Turns out its a bit farther away from the cars than I normally ride
Dooring followup
Submitted by winterrider on
Here's a nice video (taken in a street cycling course by the looks of it) that demonstrates the door zone and suggests where it is safe to ride. It turns out its farther from the car than I would have thought.
After watching both videos, I think I'm going to start riding a bit further away from parked cars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TQ7aID1jHs
ouch
Submitted by bclark on
Yeah, that is a very graphic example of the consequences. Obviously a concern given the appearance of door zones bike lanes in the NW. I found it particularly interesting when the instructional video pointed out the natural reaction to swerve, even if outside the reach of the door.
Bollard Hazard
Submitted by bclark on
A pathway/street intersection should be marked on the pathway by a warning sign or bollard. Bollards must be positioned to allow a wheelchair or bike with trailer to easily pass on either side, with a minimum 1.0 m space, 1.5 m preferred.
and
Either one or three bollards should be used, never two. The centre bollard must be removable. Using only two bollards will channel users into the centre of the pathway, setting up potential head-on collisions. 3-1-1 call time...
awesome
Submitted by mikewarren on
Fuck, that's terrible. There's a new one like that on the Elbow path over the dam (well, they newly added a second bollard). As a bonus, those are at great "break your hand, dump you on shoulder" height.
Do they really have a giant problem with cars driving on the bike paths anyway? These things seem like a solution to a problem we don't have.
Pretty much my thoughts...
Submitted by bclark on
While not normally given to strong language that was pretty much my exact thought when I almost turffed into it...well, okay...that may be a bit of an exaggeration as far as almost turfing into it but still...
When I ride on the pathway there are things I just don't always look for because I don't reasonably expect them to be there. This is one of those. I mean...seriously...who would think this is a good idea? Imagine driving your car down a two way street, coming around a corner and seeing a big steel pole in the middle of your lane, then noticing the same in the middle of the other lane! Do you drive around to the right? Probably best but what if there are debris on the side of the road and you aim for the centre but so does the driver coming towards you?
I mean...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, I have a call in to 3-1-1 on this. They are probably getting close to blocking my number!
Double bollards
Submitted by BCDon on
These are the same as the ones at each end of the Glenmore Dam crossing. Coming off the dam is not too bad but to get to the dam, you have to head downhill. Thus your speed may be higher. But then I suppose that should not be an issue because the speed limit is 10 kph at that location.
City Response
Submitted by bclark on
Spoke to a City rep on this. Supposedly the community had serious issues with people driving into this location on this (used to be service road) pathway and partying in the natural area. The bollards were put in to prevent this.
I suggested that the location presents a hazard to cyclists, the first complaint they have received on it. We had a lengthy discussion on why this was the case and whether it is the cyclists responsibility to be aware of such hazards or whether we have reasonable expectation that our lane of travel be free from imposed obstacles (i.e. obstacles in place by design). I also pointed out that this goes against guidelines presented in the cited pathway and bikeway guide. The City rep resolved to go out and look into the situation. My suggestion was to move the bollards so that one is centred on the yellow line, acceptable based on their guide and common practice on the pathways I ride, and one on the right side (photo perspective) of the picture. There was some discussion that the City could just put up a gate or chain as this was an ad-hoc pathway (i.e. only put in because the service road was already there...a good thing). I said that this was definitely not the outcome I wanted. Moving the bollards will accomplish the goal they are aiming at but it will now cost a bit more time and money to make it safer for cyclists.
Now, I also thought there was another cycle plan or guide that had a diagram of bollard placement. Does anyone have a link or reference?
City of Calgary documents
Submitted by row_wood on
I spent a couple of hours looking, and the only reference I could find to bollards placement was that one from 2000 that you found. I'm sure that I saw a diagram within the last year in a city document!
Me too
Submitted by bclark on
I looked through a number of documents but only found the reference we've talked about. I'm pretty certain I saw a very clear picture showing the proper and improper placement of bollards on pathways. From what I recall it was also in a relatively recent document.
They cycling strategy only
Submitted by Fuzz on
They cycling strategy only talks about a review of safety regarding bollards:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/cycling/Cycling-Strate...
pg53
"Safety issues relating to the following pathway components will be addressed: adjacent landscaping, curves, hills, blind corners, signage, intersections, bollards, bridge/pathway transitions, lighting, fixed objects within 1 metre."
Rock Removal
Submitted by Cword on
On Up-side.
The rock, that was essentially an over-size bollard and created the squeeze at the north end of the Edworthy Park bridge, was removed this week.
That means less conflict with pedestrians when accessing the bridge and likely better snow clearing in the coming winter.
OK, Weirdness....
Submitted by gyrospanner on
I came through there tonight and didn't notice "No Rock," but did notice "new asphalt," because I am allways looking for pedestrians/cyclists there as a form of accidents waiting to happen... (It is still a bit of a "High Attention Area.")
I also noticed some new asphalt on the south side of the tracks, probably where no cyclists give a crap, anyways...
no crap?
Submitted by RichieRich on
The above location (north side of bridge) is another problem area for visibility to all MUP users. A little pruning would be appreciated.
I'll second that!
Submitted by gyrospanner on
Both ends of that bridge demand EXTRA CAUTION!
Visibility is poor - I'm always afraid of coming across a little kid in either of those areas, so I slow down a lot....
10th Ave SW (West End)
Submitted by bclark on
With the removal of the lights at 10th Avenue and 14th Street NW, the 10th Avenue corridor has the potential to become a very useful east-west connector for cyclists crossing the centre city (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Cycling/Cycling-Route-Improvements/10-Avenue-South-cycling-route-improvements.aspx).
In order for this to happen there needs to be some substantial improvements.
Above photo (west facing) is the junction of the pathway segment from Pumphouse Road to 10th Avenue. It's tucked in behind the blue construction fencing. Cyclists must cross the turning hook (visible) and onto the narrow section of sidewal to continue east.
Above photo (east facing) shows where cyclists must carry on to until they can safely cross 10th. Once across, at the crosswalk, they then have to remount into the traffic lane (i.e. off the sidewalk) to carry on.
As it stands, this does not necessarily scream "cyclists welcome". Hopefully this is something that we can work with the City to correct.
I think you mean 14th Street
Submitted by 2wheeler on
I think you mean 14th Street SW
No I meant 10th Avenue
Submitted by bclark on
I was referring to cyclists coming off the pathway having to ride across the "J" and then onto the skinny sidewalk directly in the line of the photo, then dismounting and crossing at the pedestrian crosswalk and then remounting from the curb to ride along the road...or on the sidewalk as the case is with the two cyclists on the right-hand sidewalk in the photo.
Sidewalk or Bike Path?
Submitted by bclark on
The above new section of "pathway" recently cropped up near Dalhousie Drive and Shagganappi Trail NW. Part of me wants to put it in this section but part of me leans towards this being a good thing. Why?
The bad part. This definitely perpetuates the confusion about what a sidewalk is vs. a bike path and could lead to some hazardous situations in the event that a cyclist doesn't recognize they need to slow down as they approach a pedestrian, i.e. it really is a sidewalk so pedestrians should be given the priority. The other bad part is this ends further west at the intersection and could result in fast moving cyclists entering the intersection, believing they have the right of way, and being struck by a car.
The good part. Painting the sidewalk as a pathway definitely gives cyclists a legit (or something they can claim as legit) alternative to riding on the road. This is specifically useful as this sidewalk leads to Northland Mall, two schools, a library, a church and a pool. As such, it may be a much more attractive ride for the "interested but concerned" demographic.
Ultimately though, it points the requirement for clarity on exactly what the City intends to consider a bike path vs. sidewalk...and this is why it is in as "bad". Thoughts?
I used this last month when
Submitted by winterrider on
I used this last month when riding with my 3 yo on a trail-a-bike. I view the paint as a sign to all that bikes are allowed here (as opposed to normal sidewalks), It is certainly needed here as the road parallel to the path is too high traffic to use with kids or for the unexperienced. It only went as far as it needed to to get me past the busy section of the road so I had no complaints about it ending, although at each end it links to on street paths that link to addidional bike paths.
I would have used this sidewalk with or without the paint but it was nice to know I was being legal.
sidewalk bike paths
Submitted by mikewarren on
As winterrider said, they might be useful for kids, strollers, joggers, etcetera but I don't see how they can be considered "commuter" infrastructure. As we've seen with 32nd and 40th Avenues, these are being used INSTEAD of proper on-street accomodation: the existing 2001 plan for 32nd and 40th -- which was on display at the open house -- calls for bike lanes on 32nd and 40th, and instead all that exists is asphalt sidewalks. The only changes to curbs in the entire area was to ADD a bad-for-cyclists median on Charleswood. They didn't even build proper full-width curb ramps on the new "sidewalk MUP" up 32nd.
In that area (the above picture is on Dalhousie Dr. just west of the lights for Shaganappi), this link is okay if you want to get into the neighbourhood, but if you're passing through, aren't you more likely to want to head down to Northmount (or at least 52nd Avenue)? Or, if westbound, you'll probably want Dalhousie Drive itself (and are forced to use it in the next block behind to photographer, I believe). The "bikeway" paralleling Shaganappi does connect in here (other side of the lights via more sidewalk bike paths) so it's not a total loss, bike-network-wise but I've also heard/read that 52nd is "supposed" to be a bike way (I believe the same Brentwood/U of C area "open" house) so if the long term plan for that is to turn the sidewalk in front of the high school into asphalt, then it's a big giant fail.
These are better than nothing, I guess, but the evidence so far points to their use even in "bulldozed a new street from prairie" cases. Obviously, it's way cheaper to put a yellow line down than move the curbs on Dalhousie Drive, but my fear is that these are "the future" for cycling infratructure not just stop-gaps.
If I was commuting here I
Submitted by winterrider on
If I was commuting here I would be on the road. Possibly taking the lane (I'm not sure how wide those lanes are). Certainly for commuting an on street bike lane would be nice.
lanes
Submitted by mikewarren on
I ride out of the City through there fairly frequently, and it's pretty good -- decently-wide lanes and there are 3 of the each direction until after Shaganappi. With 2 lanes after that, it's somewhat busy until you get past both shopping centres but then it's pretty good (I then take a left later on and use the ex-bus-trap which is now a radio gate under Sarcee).
yellow aliens
Submitted by RichieRich on
seems to be lots of little aliens running around the city "randomly" painting yellow lines down the middle of sidewalks. I wonder if this becomes "newly created in 2011 bicycle infrastructure" in order to meet some promised upgrade quota? A yellow line down a sidewalk doesn't change the fact that it was designed as a sidewalk.
In the case of the photo above, the hill you see in the photo (north side) tends to gravity drain liquids down onto the sidewalk sometimes creating an slippery icy experience.