[2wheeler]

A few areas in the City have Cyclist exclusive pathways. Some are seasonal “bikes only” and some are year round. Unfortunately it’s very common to have pedestrians and other users using the bike only lanes.

Around Glenmore reservoir there’s two separate lanes, ones for walkers and one for cyclists only. As far as I’m aware it’s the only cyclist exclusive lane available in the winter in Calgary. When I’ve ridden this section of trail this winter it’s had many pedestrians using it, dog walkers, joggers etc. This can be problematic when there is only a narrow strip of pathway that is ice free. The fact that it’s suppose to be for cyclists doesn’t seem to register at all with these people.

Does Bike Calgary advocate for any kind of education or enforcement for the cyclist exclusive lanes? Should we as users be calling 311 to voice concern? Is there a better way to take back the lanes?

[SaferCyclingCalgary]

While this is a very old post, I’m just seeing it now.

In the winter, or when there’s closures for any reason, the “cycling only” portions of the pathway are to be shared with all users. They’re actually not reserved just for cyclists in the summer, either: they’re also for people who skateboard, inline skate, use a wheelchair or wheeled mobility aid.

When both are available, one is for heels, the other for wheels. When only one is available, it’s for EVERYONE.

[2wheeler]

Thanks for the response. I’m aware of the sharing aspect of many of the cycling lanes, that wasn’t my question. The question is does anyone advocate to educate those who use the “wheels” only infrastructure as only a suggestion.

[SaferCyclingCalgary]

Calgary Parks will educate people on appropriate etiquette for using the pathways, but I will say it again: when there is only one path available – as in the winter – it is shared by all users and is NOT just for wheels.

If you need more clarification, call 311.

[2wheeler]

It seems that you don’t believe my concern is valid, as your response is to deny it by bringing up a specific situation where the wheels only doesn’t apply. Is “wheels only” as simple as just etiquette or is it not in the bylaws?

In the winter around the North side of the Glenmore reservoir there are two pathways. Both are cleared in the winter. The wheels only pathway is very often used by runners, walkers and dog walker with long leashes, which makes it more dangerous to cycle. Parks have never enforced the “wheels” only pathway, it sounds like this issue ins’t of interest to Bike Calgary. Or are you speaking for Bike Calgary?

[SaferCyclingCalgary]

I didn’t deny you have a concern: I stated that when there’s only one pathway, it is shared by all. If there’s only one section that’s clear of ice/snow, then there’s only one pathway.

Bike Calgary doesn’t do any enforcement, that’s well beyond their jurisdiction. No, I don’t speak for Bike Calgary.

There is also nothing to enforce: there is no legal requirement for “heels” to only use the “heels” side of the pathway when both are available. It is for courtesy and good etiquette only.

Long leashes, however, are illegal: there’s a very specific maximum length for leashes listed in the bylaws (I’m not sure if it’s in Parks or Responsible Pet Ownership), so feel free to report those concerns to 311 to pass along to bylaw. That’s regardless of which side of the pathway people are using.

Feel free to read the bylaw yourself if you don’t believe me: https://www.calgary.ca/csps/abs/bylaws-by-topic/parks-pathways.html

[2wheeler]

I asked if Bike Calgary Advocates for “cycling only” infrastructure.

The Bylaws webpage states:

“You must obey posted signs, as they are there to alert you to important rules and regulations.”

Parks could enforce pathway restrictions once they have designated a certain pathway with signage. The Glenmore bike path has stencils for bicycles and has posted “no pedestrian” signs. We’ll see if that will happen.

I’ll call 311 to register my concern.

[crivak]

311 is definitely the place to register concerns, as even if they don’t do something right away the data point lets them revisit it in the future.

For situations like this, I think enforcement is hard and it boils down to better use. What I mean is that, if the route is populated with more walkers/joggers etc then they will naturally start expanding if there is no other use-case there as often. You see this growing pain a lot in, for example, American cities that make a wheel/heel lane over a bridge in the same manner as a Dutch city that has a wheel/heel lane over a bridge. The Dutch city has constant bicycle presence which reminds users of where they’re going to be, while the American city walkers get surprised by the bicycle actually showing up (and ringing a bell at them to get outta the bike lane).

So I guess the situation boils down to, is this ever going to be a high traffic route? Is the heel lane space big enough for their use-case? Is there infrastructure on either ends of the reservoir/connector paths confusing and reducing bicycle traffic? Do casuals not feel like it would be a good route for them to eventually wind up on naturally? etc. If none of that is a concern, maybe the route is just too new and still growing into its position.

[Author]

Posts