The city is planning to implement the first ever dedicated cycling lanes in the downtown core this year. The open house yesterday was, I think, well attended despite the weather. They've posted the planned treatment online. At some intersections there are a couple of possible options. The City is seeking more input from you and have extended the feedback period to either Wednesday June 20 or Friday June 22.
The bike lanes would be a minimum of 1.5 m wide and parking 2.5 m.
On 6 St at 5 Ave, option 2 would require separate signal cycle for bicyles; whereas option 1 would require parking to be removed. In option 1, cars would enter the curb lane to turn right. A lot of the success or failure of option 1 would depend on actual traffic patterns. (A line of cars merging through a line of bikes sounds terrible, but what might actually happen in real life is that bicycles waiting at 6 Ave would all clear the bike lane first an cars would filter into the curside turn lane at the intersection and behind all the bikes).
At 6 St and 3/4 Ave, the difference between the options is a painted buffer between bike and travel lane.
At 7 St and 6 Ave, option 2 would have right-turning traffic turn accross the path of cyclists.
Between 3 and 8 Ave, all intersections have lights, and are timed for E-W traffic. For the most part, N-S traffic stops at every intersection, so traffic speeds are very low.
What are your opinions?
UPDATE: We've received supplementary design information from the city including plans for separate signal cycles and lane widths.
UPDATE: Also, now with overview pictures of each entire route.
Forums:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 6-7 St SW bike lanes - supplemental information.pdf | 130.9 KB |
 6th & 7th All Option 1 (R 2012-06-18).jpg | 860.38 KB |
| 6th & 7th All Option 2 (R 2012-06-18).jpg | 880.13 KB |
Door zone?
Submitted by jondub on
So I am I correct in thinking that where parking is permitted, the bike lane is going to be wholly withtin the 'door zone'.
We've been very vocal about
Submitted by Richard Z on
We've been very vocal about putting the bike lane far enough away from the parked cars. At a minimum, your right handlebar would be 1 m away from a parked pickup truck if you're riding in the middle of the lane, 1.5 m if passing a parked car. It is a concern esp. because there is high parking turnover.
Terrible!
Submitted by winterrider on
I used to commute south on 7th regularly, though I no longer do, but from looking at the maps these bike lanes are terrible.
The problem is bike lanes in the door zone next to parking. As well as right hook dangers.
They have recognized the danger from right hooks, as the options either allow for cars to turn right across the bike lane (bad), or have a separate turning lane that cars must access by crossing the bike lane (better). But this is not done at every intersection where this danger exists.
In my commuting experience on this road, the safe manouver is to take the lane at EVERY intersection where a right hook could occur, and then move back right as I proceed through the intersection.
So far as the door zone goes, there is enough room on 7th for two travel lanes, two parking lanes, and a bike lane. From the diagrams, and from previous experience with door zone bike lanes put in by the City, I am convinced that they put in another door zone bike lane here which is more dangerous that the current situation.
My suggestion would be to paint in a 3 foot buffer zone between the parked cars and the bike lane. If you look at the diagram for 7th St between 3rd and 4th Ave in this link:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/cycling/Cycling-Route-...
You can see that there is enough room for a parking lane, then a turning lane, bike lane, two travel lanes, and more parking on the other side of the street. This alignment of lanes should be painted down the entired length of 7th, and where a turning lane is not required, there should be a no travel buffer zone between the bike lane and parking lane.
6th Street has the same problems and the same solutions.
One more note
Submitted by winterrider on
If they install the bike lanes as in the diagrams, I can tell you that I will probably just take the lane when riding on these roads. The bike lanes would be too dangerous.
Agreed.
Submitted by snowandscience on
This option especially looks like suicide. http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/cycling/Cycling-Route-...
Bikes get their own light in
Submitted by Richard Z on
Bikes get their own light in this scenario; there would be no turn on red. Whether drivers would obey it is another question.
That's my main concern
Submitted by Smokey Crow on
My main concern about this option was that I see many instances where 'no turns on red' signs are either ignored or people just don't notice them. I just hope that this would be very clear if this is the route where the city goes. But after looking at both options I originally liked Option 1 but began to veer to the idea of Option 2 after thinking about it and seeing that cars will be crossing the bike lane in Option 1 with no sorts of controls (and thinking that this may not encourage interested but concerned riders). The green light for cyclists was a clincher for me....eventually...but of course this is just my opinion.
Separate signals, or advance?
Submitted by winterrider on
Do cyclists and cars have completely separate signals? I would assume there is an advance green for cyclists, then a general green for both cyclists and cars. The advance green will allow cyclists already queued to proceed safely, but....
What about a car that gets green, but is waiting for a pedestrian to cross before they turn, and then just as they start turning, a cyclist aproaches from the rear and attemps to pass them in the cycle lane. This will happen eventually with a design like this. The car is only looking at the pedestians, the cyclist thinks they have right of way because they are in the bike lane.
Just look at the thread on the pedestrian crossing at 14th St and the Memorial Dr onramp. Its a similar situation and has resulted in people being hit by cars.
My understanding is that they
Submitted by Richard Z on
My understanding is that they will be separate signals, ie, cyclists have a red when right-turning cars have a green. But that's only for the 6 St/5 Ave intersection with the dual turn lane option. At the other intersections, in the options where the cyclist through lane is right of a through-and-turn lane, the plan now seems to be only "yield to bikes" signs.
What the!?
Submitted by pinkrobe on
Is it my imagination, or is option 2 in most of those scenarios designed to right-hook a cyclist? Damn...
Outside of rush hour I'd utilize the lanes, but during the daily rush I think I'd be safer taking the lane and sprinting...
Observations.
Submitted by bclark on
Based on the revised information from the City, a couple observations.
7th Street (SB) at 3rd Ave will still have four-way stops. A change to preferred traffic flow for SB cyclists might be preferred, however, this would impact the future 3rd Ave SW bike route. Likewise, having all SB vehicles stop at this intersection may minimized the chance of a cyclist getting "hooked" by a right turning vehicle.
6th Street (NB) at 8th Avenue. EB cyclists on 8th Avenue wanting to turn onto NB 6th Street will have to cut across two lanes of traffic to get to the bike lane. Could the option of an advance green left turn for cyclist help?
The potential for car doors to swing into the bicycle lane is a concern. A painted buffer between the parked cars and bike lane may help to define the space, i.e. guide motorists to park closer to the curb, guide cyclists away from the parked cars, etc. Likewise, the application of paint, delineating the lanes, might help remind motorists to be very aware of cyclists and clue them in that the lanes are dedicated to cyclists.
My experience on 6th and 7th Streets is that there is a lot happening but it isn't happening as fast as on some other roads. It may be that this will help in cyclist-motorist awareness of each other.
Right hook and door zones, pavement markings
Submitted by Richard Z on
1. Other things being equal, it would be preferable to have the lanes arranged so that the danger of a right hook is eliminated. That means option 1 (weave and right turn lane for cars to the right of the bike lane) at 7 St/6 Aveand 7 St/8 Ave, and a review of the other intersections where the current proposal puts the bike lane to the right of cars allowed to turn right: 6 St/1 Ave, 6 St/2 Ave, 6 St/3 Ave, 7 St/3 Ave, 7 St/4 Ave. "Yield to bike" signs only at these intersections doesn't cut it in my opionion. They're hard to see on the side of the road esp with a parking and a bike lane between the cars and the signs. Through bike lanes or combined bike and turn lanes would be much preferred.
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments...
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments...
2. At 6 St/5 Ave, I prefer option 1 as well. Note that currently, the parking on the east side of the street is restricted during rush hour. So right now, the two rightmost lanes are allowed to fill up and then turn right during rush hour. If there's still no parking during rush hour on 6 St between 5 and 6 Ave, you'll get cars turning right from 6 Ave AND cars merging over from the driving lane into the curb lane along 6 St and then crossing the path of cyclists moving over to the curb at the approach to the intersection (illegally of course). If they leave parking there, people are going to complain that they restrict traffic flow by allowing parking during rush hour. Plus you get cars coming out the alley crossing the empty parking lane AND a bike lane to get to the through and right turn lane only to move over to the right after a few meters. So what's going to happen is that cars turning out of the alley will ignore the lane markigns and just pull up along the right side of the bike lane and then either drive through it at the intersection or cross it just before the intersection. Option 1 sees to me to be much much cleaner, less prone to abuse, less prone to confusion. It also allows cars to turn right on red, which would have to be prohibited in option 2.
3. Put the bike lanes outside of the door zone. Paint a buffer between the bike lane and parked cars, not between bike lane and driving lane. Speeds and speed differential are low on these streets: everyone basically stops at every light. Yet especially between 4 and 8 Ave, parking turnover is high. Door zone conflicts seem to me to be a more pressing concern, especially because there you have narrow (1.5 m) bike lanes, presumably narrow (2.1m) parking lanes, and presumably wider driving lanes because buses must be accommodated.
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bike-lanes/buffered-bik...
4. Roads has been very stingy with paint. The bike lane signs get painted once at the beginning of a block and then every 200m. Bike lane markings are the same width as any other lane marking. Research shows that colored pavement, wider bike lane markings, and more frequent bike symbol/HOV diamond work in getting drivers to respect the bike lane, not open car doors without checking, and yielding when turning or merging across a bike lane. Don't be stingy with paint! Green thermoplast in the conflict zones, hashed buffers, and bike symbol/diamonds ESPECIALLY at the end of the block. Double lines where cars must not enter the bike lane. Bike lane clearly marked with extra bike symbols and wider lane markings especially where they're narrow and next to parking (ie between 5 and 8 Ave). Etc.
5. North of 4 Ave, on-street parking is not consistently used (especially where it's right next to a huge lot!) -- and it quite often happens that the parking lane is empty, even south of 4 Ave. Prevent cars from driving in it! Put planters, jersey barriers, etc. in it. Experience on 10 Ave SW shows that if people can drive somewhere to bypass a lineup of cars, they will, regardless of whether there's a diamond or a cyclist in the lane.
6. If they're going with option 2 (separate lights for turning cars and bikes)at 6 St/5 Ave and 7 St/4 Ave, bikes and pedestrians must get the priority. 7 St/4 Ave option 2 seems especially bad: cars get priority to turn right, then peds and bikes get a green to cross but cars still get to turn right across the path of bikes and peds!?
7. Put intersection crossing arkings where the bike lane doesn't continue straight through (eg, 6 St/5 Ave option 2, 6 St/1 Ave for bikes continuing straight to the pathway and turning left for Peace bridge and MUP accessat 7 St).
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments...
8. Put stop sign on WB 1 Ave at 6 St.
Agreed!
Submitted by finn1911 on
Your 2nd point has swayed me. I was thinking option 1 with the advance signal, howeever, as much as I don't like to see cars crossing the bike lane, I think option 1 is the most likely to succeed on busy roads at rush hour.
Options
Submitted by Bluhrgirl on
While I understand they are looking to create a comfort zone to encourage cycling, a few signs telling bikes and motor vehicles they need to coexist would be better than mandating bikes ride in a dangerous location. If I leave the lane to ensure I am safely situated, will I encounter hostility from drivers? I think so.
Share the Road program
Submitted by DarrenB on
I agree completely. And to take this idea to the next level, Roads should undertake a Share the Road campaign to educate drivers and cyclists about how to behave on city streets where both modes are accommodated.
Roads has already funded education campaigns, like Limit Your Speed, so this sort of thing is quite possible to do. There is even money in the Cycling Strategy for education. That's the least that the City could do, in fact, if they aren't going to make space for cyclists because they don't want to enter into the fray of motorist backlash or parking backlash from the BRZ.
Slow-speed riding
Submitted by snowandscience on
My infrastructure comments are above... however, I noticed the other day while riding through downtown that I feel I need to keep up with traffic (i.e. full speed and effort ahead) when sharing the road with cars. When there's dedicated bike space, I slow down almost subconsciously. I tested this by measuring the amount of time it takes for me to cycle on a sharrow'ed street (8 Ave SW) vs. dedicated lane space (10 Ave SW), with roughly the same amount of stop lights etc. Turns out I ride a lot slower/more leisurely in the bike lane. Not sure what the implications of this are for 6th st/7th st other than my sanity - having lanes there will alleviate a substantial stress of "feeling the need to keep up". Anyone else have similar thoughts?
I agree. There's too much
Submitted by Richard Z on
I agree. There's too much traffic downtown on most streets to tell the interested-but-concerned that they should just share the road exactly for the reason you mention, among others. If there are 6 cars behind you waiting for you to get through the intersection, that's a lot of stress that'll cause people to be less attentive or safe than they'd be if they felt comfortable and unhurried. Quite possibly that alone will have more of a positive effect on road safety than riding near the door zone for two or three (short N-S) blocks has in terms of risk.
2 Concerns
Submitted by ianphilthompson on
1. Having two right hand turning lanes crossing a bike lane at 6th St and 5th Ave for example. The left right hand turn lane will have poor visibility of the bikes coming up in heavy traffic.
2. Whichever they choose for either having the right hand turn lane on the right or left side of the bike lane, they just need to make this consistent across the city so drivers and cyclists aren't confused by differences between road markings. This will be especially important during inclement or winter weather when painted lines are not always visible.
Good point (2)! Consistency
Submitted by Richard Z on
Good point (2)! Consistency is important. Right now (almost?) all bike lanes terminate in broken lines if right turns are permitted and cars are supposed to merge into the curb (bike) lane to turn. Where the bike lane isn't against the curb, as here on 6/7 St, because they don't want to sacrifice parking, that's not an option.
More Comments
Submitted by bclark on
Given the position of the bike lanes adjacent to parking, I would hope there is more room than under the current configuration on 10th Street north of 23rd Ave NW. There should be no possibility that the bike lane is impeded upon by opening car doors.
Right turns across the bike lane should be carefully thought about in regards to potential for collision. The treatment at 6th Street & 5th Avenue in option 2 has distinct timing for cyclists and motorists. Hopefully that would include a red light indicating "no turn", perhaps as a red arrow or some other such device more robust than a simple "no turn on red". Trying to think as a new cyclist I thought this might be a better option than riding a lane between lines of moving traffic. A challenge is that timing would be frustrating for anyone wanting to make the light because of the short cyclist-green but if one of the driving lanes were converted to a turn/through lane, it could alleviate that problem by allowing comfortable cyclists to merge into the traffic lane (especially in non-rush periods). As a cyclist comfortable in traffic maybe option 1 would be more efficient but who knows where cars will merge across or if they will partially occupy the lbike lane when doing so.
The other intersection 7th and 4th, sounds a bit more problematic if bikes don't get a distinct signal.
The comment I made multiple times to Transportation staff was that the lanes need to be built for the lowest common denominator. They need to be clearly delineated and easy to interpret. Better to overpaint, stencil and sign than to skimp.
Portland Oregon's solution
Submitted by billrennie on
Portland - known as one of the most bike friendly cities in North America, has come up with an interesting solution to a similar situation. They are proposing shared bike/turning lane. I think this would be safer than either of the 2 options proposed.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/05/northnortheast_port...
Portland's solution - picture
Submitted by billrennie on
Yeah, combined turn/bike
Submitted by Richard Z on
Yeah, combined turn/bike lanes are useful and accepted standard, eg:
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments...
If there's enough space, though, NACTO prefers abike through lane or intersection pocket.
What I find almost more interesting is what happens after the intersection: Don't want cars driving in the bike lane or in the parking lane when it's empty? Put planters, posts, signs there so they can't even go there.
Some parts of this are nice -
Submitted by Charbucks on
Some parts of this are nice - 7 foot bike lanes with a buffer in the door zone, amazing! And the barrier to stop people going straight through is a good idea.
However, I could see it turning into a 10 ave situation, where the bike lane turns into a right turn lane almost exclusively and bikes are forced to go between the two lanes. Try riding past Community Natural Foods at 5 pm and you'll see what I mean.
Any updates on when they are
Submitted by Fuzz on
Any updates on when they are doing this? I thought it was gonig to be before the end of the year.
A brief answer
Submitted by bclark on
There were some ongoing concerns with the plans for 6th and 7th and that the City is in the process of resolving them. As a result, the timeframe is delayed. We are waiting on additional information.
This can't come soon enough!
Submitted by Fuzz on
This can't come soon enough! Almost got taken out yesterday by some jerkoff in a Cadillac Escalade on 6th street who's pride was bruised because there was a cyclist on a completly empty street and he needed to be infront of me NOW. Even if that meant passing me on the right and cutting infront less than a foot from me. Can't wait to have a safe way to get through downtown, the most dangerous part of my trip.