I cannot rewrite the entire posting but here on the bike pathway system thread on SSP Calgary
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=175861&page=25
there is the start of a discussion on post 238 about the proposed bike lanes for the West LRT expansion that will be discussed at a meeting on May 2nd at Westbrook Mall (either between 2-4 or 4-8, the city has mixed info on the exact time).
The planning of these bike lanes and their integration with traffic is completely against the direction that more bike orientated cities are taking. Cities like Copenhagen and Vancouver are moving towards curb side dedicated bike lanes where the parked car lane is between the bike lane and the moving traffic. Cities mentioned above are actually spending a considerable amount of money converting towards that type of setup. Calgary, which is more starting from square one are actually proposing to construct most of their bike lanes in the older fashion which has already proven more dangerous and less effective at encouraging bike travel.
This type of proposal and subsequent delivery of bike lanes in this fashion is simply terrible in every way. Most bicycalists would GREATLY preffer the dedicated bike lanes that are removed from traffic, having the parked cars between them and the moving traffic. This also means that cars that are being parked are "not" cutting across the bike lane in order to get into the parked car lane and the bike lane does not have driver side doors opening and potentially forcing bikers to suddenly swerve into the vehicle lane and potentially cause a serious accident.
The city needs to do alot better on this, they need to look at the bike lanes that other cities are moving towards and find viable routes/streets where they can produce dedicated bike lanes with parked car lanes between the bike lane and the moving traffic or where parking lanes do not exist putting barriers between the vehicle lanes and the bike lanes such as it already done in cities where biking is more popular and viable as a form of transportation.
I have looked at alot of the proposed "bike lanes" on the above proposal and rest assured that I would not want to bike along alot of those routes or use those bike lanes, and countless other people who might consider biking to work will be put off by the implementation of those lanes as well and thus choose not to use a bike for transportation.
The implementation of proper dedicated bike lanes that are seperated from vehicle traffic is critical if the city is sincere about making biking a truly viable transportation option for more people. If they build things right they WILL see an increase in bike ridership, but what they are proposing atm is certainly not going to do it.
Not possible?
Submitted by DarrenB on
The protected bike lane issue isn't so simple. Among maintenance challenges for such lanes, I believe it is unlawful to put a parking lane between two travel lanes as you propose (i.e. one for motorists and one for cyclists), in part because motorists would have to jaywalk across one of those travel lanes to get off the roadway after parking their vehicle.
I am also not sure that such designs are necessarily safer for cyclists. They remove the fear of being overtaken and run down by faster moving motor vehicles (which rarely happens in reality), but the design GREATLY increase the risk of bike collisions at intersections because cyclists aren't nearly as visible behind parked cars (although this might be mitigated by routes with very few intersections, admittedly).
I don't claim to know the best solution here, but I think it is important to keep an open mind about the decision making process that the planners and designers have undertaken. It suspect that these sorts of designs were considered, but may have been eliminated for reasons such as those I mention above. If so, do you really think the City is doing such a bad job or can't build a 'proper' bike lane?
If it were unlawful then it
Submitted by Tropics on
If it were unlawful then it would require a bylaw change. I am sure Vancouver is not overtly causing countless jaywalking violations through a willy nilly implementation of bike lanes as I mention.
Do I think the City cannot build a proper bike lane? Of course not. Do I think the PDF plan I linked to above proposes proper bike lanes? No. Is there a tremendous amount of research on the benefits of the types of bike lanes I mention already done by other cities that have invested in bike travel ALOT more then our city? Most definately. Even this Wiki page explains alot of the studies quite effectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities
Understand, this website and organization are here for the primary purpose of encouraging bicycle use in the city and the infrastructure required to make it both safe and appealing. Things like this do not make most people want to bike in Calgary.
Remove the bike lane from the eastbound road thereby freeing up that space. Move that width to the westbound side of the road for 2-way bike segmented bike traffic on that side of the road where parking is not actually required. use an extra 2 feet of width to build a small barrier wall to seperate the automobile traffic and the bike traffic. Now from south to north you have 1) parking lane, 2) eastbound traffic lane, 3) westbound traffic lane, 4) barrier (small meridian or concrete flower pots or whatever as other cities are already experiementing with), 5) eastbound bike lane, 6) westbound bike lane.
That uses almost the identical width, the other difference being the barrier width added. There is no reason whatsoever to do it the way the city currently has laid out in that proposed setup.
Traffic laws are under provincial jurisdiction
Submitted by DarrenB on
That's why Vancouver can do it but Calgary cannot. Please also recognize that segragated lanes like this can be VERY dangerous to cyclists at intersections unless cycling specific traffic control lights are installed to restrict motor vehicle flow. These lanes are expensive and complicated to implement. I just don't think the City of Calgary is prepared to leap head-first into this.
As far as research goes. there is actually quite a bit to demonstrate that on-street painted bike lanes or grade-separated bike lanes that integrate well with travel lanes are actually MUCH safer than some physically separated lanes. The reason is that intersections are where most bike collisions occur, and physically separated lanes impair the ability of motorists and cyclists to see each other. The problem with cycling along with the 'traffic' is that one needs proper education/training to do it effectively, and it can be really intimidating to new cyclists. So there is a high level of comfort in being segragated from traffic, but at the same time, it can lead to a reduction in cycling safety which many people don't realize. So the choice of bikeway design gets really complicated.
If you are keen to learn more and help out, join Bike Calgary, consider taking our one-day urban cycling skills course, get involved in our advocacy, and meet some really great people and contribute to the cause. You clearly have knowledge and passion that would be valuable.
research
Submitted by 2wheeler on
Hi Darren
Always like your posts and thoughts on bicycle infrastructure. I do notice in this thread both Tropics and yourself reference "research' indicating one position or another. Do you think you could post links to the research? It's always good to be able to see the original source when evaluating one side or the other. Thanks.
Start here
Submitted by Richard Z on
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069x-8-47.pdf
That is a solid article. What
Submitted by Tropics on
That is a solid article. What they call a "cycle track" is in effect a dedicated and segregated bike lane such as I have been talking about and they found considerable improvements in safety on that type of infrastructure.
I wonder if the people in charge of actually doing the design of the current proposals have read that article. One would hope they do their research at least to that level, but if so they ignored it almost completely which is disappointing.
I don't know the area, but it
Submitted by Richard Z on
I don't know the area, but it doesn't look from the diagrams as if the route in question meets NACTO criteria for cycle tracks. From the map it looks like there are lots of cross streets, where a two-way cycle track is ill advised (cyclists in the inside lane can't turn, lots of cross traffic through two-way bicycle traffic is dangerous). From the diagram it looks like cycle tracks on both sides would require taking out parking on both sides of the street.
We rode along Sproce Dr
Submitted by Richard Z on
We rode along Spruce Dr on Saturday. They weren't kidding when they said that parking is underused: there were literally no cars parked along the entire stretch of Spruce Dr between 3 Av and Edworthy hill. Very low traffic volume, and a number of 30kmh zones. I think you'll effectively get buffered lanes here since you'll be able to ride in the parking lane and the bike lane will act as a buffer.
Lots of Research
Submitted by DarrenB on
There is a lot of research out there, both for an against segregated bike lanes, and I was trying to put my finger on a very recent article that discussed the issues. I can't seem to find it right now, but here is a good place to start to read about the problems with separated bike paths (as well as the benefits):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Evidence_against
If I find those more recent articles, I will post them as well.
EDIT: Richard found the article I was thinking of! (You're fast man.)
not necessary
Submitted by critninja on
The example you use of Spruce Drive has very low traffic volumes, is a very wide road, hardly any people parking there, and is littered with school/playground zones. Installing a separated bike lane here would be extreme overkill and a collosal waste of money - especially considering we need separated lanes in the core more than anywhere else.
What Darren said regarding
Submitted by Richard Z on
What Darren said regarding the unlawfulness of buffered bike lanes: it sounds crazy but that's one of the reasons we hear from the city. We've also heard that, eg, it's unlawful to have a two-way bike lane on a road, because the provincial Traffic Safety Act only provides for one centre line on a highway -- and in such a setup you'd have two, one separating the car lanes and one separating the bike lanes.
But your concerns are certainly well-founded. We've also complained to the city numerous times about door-zone bike lanes,and about their habit of putting sharrows on the road in such a way that if you ride on them, you'll get doored. Part of the problem here is that the city adheres to 10-year old design standards for liability reasons, and until they adopt better standards or come up with their own (a "Bicycle Design Guide" was part of the Cyclign Startegy recommendations, and was planned to be released in early 2012) we're unlikely to see innovative -- or even current best practices -- when it comes to bike lanes.
Bike Calgary is certainly on it! Just let us know if you want to help out; but please do go to the open house and provide your feedback. Also, call 311 on any bad design you see on the street (or missign bike lanes for that matter) as well as you area Alderman. Things are unlikely to change unless more people start speaking up and demanding better bike infrastructure.
It does not totally shock me
Submitted by Tropics on
It does not totally shock me that the city has these reasons coming back to the bike community but they need to be pressured into looking at what other cities in other provinces are doing, getting the laws changed for bicycle lanes as they must clearly already have been changed in other provinces such as BC and Quebec. They sound like archaic and out of date laws that were not made with bike lanes in mind in the slightest and Calgary should not be impeding the proper development of bicycle infrastructure based on laws that clearly need modification moving on into the future.
Exactly.
Submitted by Richard Z on
Exactly.
The Situation
Submitted by bclark on
Hi, I think Darren and Richard have given you a good idea of some of the challenges we've been facing. If you look through the City's website you will find a number of reports on how to make Calgary more bicycle friendly. There is the 1996 Cycle Plan, the 2000 Pathways and Bikeways Plan and the 2008 Bicycle Policy and Needs Assessment to name a few. These reports contain some great ideas and concepts. However, it seems that it is just now, with the approval of the Cycling Strategy, that the City is just really getting started on building the infrastructure cyclists have been calling for. This is a good thing and, in my personal opinion, building bike lanes on a road like 10th Street NW, notwithstanding concerns with design elements, goes a long ways to showing a committment to address the cycling issue. It is going to be a tough challenge though. It seems to me there are more and more Calgarians on bikes every summer and even into the winter but, there is still a significant obstacle to overcome, in terms of most Calgarian's still favoring their cars. Part of the problem is the infrastructure itself being designed to make driving easy and accessible, whereas cycling infrastructure has generally been squeezed into whatever room is left over. Things are changing...slowly.
The concerns you raise about bike lane positioning are valid. Dedicated separate cycling facilities would seem to be the ideal way to encourange more Calgarians to cycle, whether it is one-way bike lanes on each side or a two-way bike lane on one side. The challenge is that building them is a significant financial and political investment. There is the cost of building the lanes, the cost of ensuring intersections are properly designed and signaled, maintenance, etc. There is also the challenge that comes with taking away driving space. Likewise, as Richard mentioned, the City is bound by the HTSA and we are told that liability is a concern. Unfortunately, in my experience, it appears that this means that cyclist safety is not always adequately protected (think pathway roadway junctions, abrupt endings to bike lanes, etc). Note: I'm not trying to make excuses on this, just pointing out some things we've run across.
I wish we had a clearer picture of all of the challenges that the City cycling group is faced with when it comes to implementing these facilities. I believe someone on the forum you included mentioned that there is a resource constriction in the Transportation Solutions group and this is the story I've heard when I've made my own inquiries on topics of concern.
There is at least one example where the City put in a contra-flow bike lane and that is 52nd Street NW. It is buffered from traffic and provides a safe, if not exactly sightly, place for cyclists to ride between the Shouldice and Bowmont pathways. There is a forum discussion specifically on this at http://bikecalgary.org/node/2628 and as part of a more general discussion at http://bikecalgary.org/node/2890 (unfortunately a bunch of picture links are broken for 52nd). Likewise, Bike Calgary, as part of our recommendations for the Centre City, considered a network of separated cycle lanes in an area of the City with the highest volume of cyclists and the most motor vehicle traffic. You can check out the letters and map outlining our recommendations as well as the City's response.
Anyway, hopefully this is helping. Please go to the workshop and ask the questions you feel you need to ask.
i think the plan is a step fwd
Submitted by critninja on
IMO I think the city is going in the right direction with the plans for the West LRT bike integration.
I live in the area and most of the roads where the bike lanes/sharrows are going in are of very low volume roads and in quieter neighbourhoods with plenty of playground/school zones that help keep vehicle speeds down during the day. The other component that is important and overlooked in your critique is signage - the plan included destination/distance signage on these new routes to help people find their way to the ctrain stations.
I have cycled in other "bike" cities including Vancouver, Montreal, and Portland and these plans are very similar to the types of lanes/infrastructure present in those cities - and they seem to be ahead of us in terms of bicycle mode split.
Separated infrastructure makes lots of sense in certain instances - in my view this area is quiet enough that it does not require such expensive infrastructure improvements. I'd rather see the city spend that kind of money in other more critical areas of the city, like the downtown core or near big "power centres" like Westhills and Market Mall.
Also keep in mind that most of city council is NOT onside with the bicycle strategy so proceeding with the "low hanging fruit" strategy to get bicycle improvements is probably not a bad route to follow.
Agree
Submitted by mikewarren on
I'm not as familiar with the West LRT area, but in general I think it makes sense to stick to on-road infrastructure for most of Calgary and use separated for those places where it really, really sucks (e.g. downtown etc). Especially considering the level of "cycling stuff" expertise we have in Calgary, there WILL be many more mistakes made and a really long separated bit of infrastructure in the suburbs is an expensive one.
Snow + gravel clearing also need to be considered, and we don't have a fleet of bike-path sized machines for that -- in fact, currently the system is at capacity I'm told in its ability to clear any more KMs of bike path.
Consider, too, that we have pretty darn low levels of bike mode-share -- although there are certainly many people who won't ride without separated infrastructure, there are also certainly many people who just need a "little more" infrastructure to feel "safe enough" to venture out (warning: that's all conjecture). I'm thinking, too, of people who currently ride but drive somewhere first (e.g. to the edge of town or Bragg Creek for a country ride, or to a park-and-ride lot for downtown). Surely at least some of this demographic would be willing to ride from their home to the park-and-ride area if there was at least an on-street lane or more room with sharrow....?
Fact: Council is onside.
Submitted by chrisguy on
Remember, other than the budget increase to CPS, the second larget budget increase Council supported was for the Cycling Strategy. If that doesn't say Council's on board, then nothing does. What we're waiting for is for Transportation to staff up and start getting the Implementation Plan underway. That, and something like an annual Bikeway Safety Audit should provide the transparency and accountability that the Cycling Strategy calls for.
Eliminate the on street parking
Submitted by billrennie on
I've often thought that the solution to bike lanes on existing streets is to eliminate the parking and convert this space into bike lanes. This leaves the same volume of vehicle traffic. The lost parking would have to be made up with off-street parking or parkades. Another benefit is the elimination of the "dooring" hazard.
tough sell?
Submitted by mikewarren on
I think the best we can hope for here is eliminating the parking on one side (e.g. like the new U of C area 37th street bike path) so one side ends up in a door-zone situation and the other is nice. Even still, I suspect this is a pretty tough sell for anyone facing losing their house-front parking spot...even, I suspect, for people who sometimes cycle.
So this would maybe work well in places where there's "only" Parking Authority stuff (still a tough sell; they want their revenue) or on streets where "most" of it fronts a park or similar (e.g. east side of 32nd Avenue from University to Northmount).
The other option is to move the curbs back 2m on one side of the street (in many areas, there's already boulevard space for this) but if that's happening than there's a decent argument for the original poster's suggestion of building a bike path there instead (still, the snow + gravel issues need to be considered).
Boulevard Move
Submitted by bclark on
I was thinking of that exact thing for 10th Street NW. If they are going to make the bike lane permanent it would make sense to move the boulevard back to obtain some additional clearance for the lanes. Yes, I realize this is expensive but I think it is necessary because those lanes are pretty tight to the parking lane. Solution, bust out and move back the boulevard and then add an inside buffer between the bike lane and parking lane to remind cyclists and motorists of the hazard (this type of set up is described in NATCO). This would potentially offer a compromise.
phase 2 coming up!
Submitted by critninja on
for those interested, Phase 2 is next up encompassing the stations of Scirroco, 69 st, and Sunalta. I am not sure when the consultation is slated to start but I'm guessing one of the BoD of BC will be in attendance just like during Phase 1.
The opportunities for
Submitted by goforstars on
The opportunities for separated lanes in the donwtown core are immense. The Dunsmuir separated bike lane in Vancouver which runs into donwtown Vancouver, is quite close to home there, a 5 min. bike ride. I choose this lane because it was installed originally for the 2010 Winter Olympics to encourage cycling during that time (when City of Vancouver & TransLink had an aggressive taraget of removing 30% of car traffic from downtown during the Olympics).
The city left the separated bike lane permanently. :D
If City of Calgary cycling infrastructure planning staff are going to Vancouver (velo-city 2012 conference), they would be strongly advised to cycle and analyze in person, at peak commuting hours for the:
*Dunsmuir separated bike lanes
*Burrard Bridge separated bike lane
*Hornby St. separated bike lane
These all run into downtown Vancouver.
Yes, of course choose a street with not too many traffic intersections for a separated bike lane, but it's not impossible. There does need to be signage, traffic lights modified to accommodate this.
I understand that Montreal did pull out the poles that created some of their separated bike lanes, preparation for winter/snow clearing. However latest I heard is that Montreal now has more commuting cyclists during their winter (which remember, their winter is slushier snow that freezes up, sticks around more than Calgary's. It is not dry snow that is removable by snowbrushes.
) Consultation needs to be with Montreal on dealing with winter, etc. for Calgary to devise some practical alternatives.
I support bike lane near the West LRT route which allows people to combine park or use transit (during off-hrs.) for inclement weather. After all, getting buses with bike racks on buses in Calgary is going to take awhile.
By the way, Calgary has new Director for Calgary Transit.