[lemongrab]

Would be nice it it could be a hybrid of option 1 and 2 with the MUP being at road level, like option 2, but both directions on one side. My preferred style is like what we have on 12th ave.

I do wonder if there are more safety concerns when none of the intersections are signalled. Maybe they would kill LH turns at most of them?

I find it clumsier to get onto/off of 2-way tracks. Option 3 works well because there is a signalled pedestrian crossing at 22nd St. But with option 1, I'd find it pretty annoying to get onto the northside MUP when coming from the west (especially if I were trying to go to Luke's or something)

 

[Surrealplaces]

I do wonder if there are more safety concerns when none of the intersections are signalled. Maybe they would kill LH turns at most of them?

I find it clumsier to get onto/off of 2-way tracks. Option 3 works well because there is a signalled pedestrian crossing at 22nd St. But with option 1, I'd find it pretty annoying to get onto the northside MUP when coming from the west (especially if I were trying to go to Luke's or something)

Definitely trade-offs to both systems. I like the MUP to be two way on one side for mainly two purposes. 1) more room when cycling, and not as close to cars on the street 2) it's easier to pass someone, or to let someone pass. The downside of course, is if you're wanting to be on the other side of the street to go to a business or to turn off onto a side street.

 

[whatchyyc]

Option 1 would be better if the crosswalks were raised at least on the MUP crossings. I mentioned in the feedback that the short blocks west of crowchild would suck for cycling

 

[artvandelay]

Great timing - I biked 26th from Bankview to Killarney about 3 times this past weekend and was thinking the bike lanes could use a refresh.

As a biker who doesn't live on 26th I prefer option 2, however I think removing all on-street parking is going to be brutal for the people living on 26th west of 17A given that both sides of the avenue are currently jam packed with parking.

I'm not a fan of MUPs that combine peds and cyclists - not great for either! There should be enough room in the ROW to remove a parking lane, add separated bike lanes, and still keep the sidewalks and one parking lane.

Also, would it kill the city to plant a few trees along this corridor?

 

[whatchyyc]

Great timing - I biked 26th from Bankview to Killarney about 3 times this past weekend and was thinking the bike lanes could use a refresh.

As a biker who doesn't live on 26th I prefer option 2, however I think removing all on-street parking is going to be brutal for the people living on 26th west of 17A given that both sides of the avenue are currently jam packed with parking.

I'm not a fan of MUPs that combine peds and cyclists - not great for either! There should be enough room in the ROW to remove a parking lane, add separated bike lanes, and still keep the sidewalks and one parking lane.

Also, would it kill the city to plant a few trees along this corridor?

I don't understand why nothing is being done with the setback. There's enough room for wider sidewalks and/or trees

 

[MichaelS]

Agreed. What is the point of having the 2.134m setback if it isn't going to be utlised when a streetscape project is being done? Individual developments may use it to widen their sidewalks, but it will be piecemeal at best. Why not use the capital works project underway to take full advantage of it?

 

[badc0ffee]

I think they used the setback on 37 St SW when they added the MUP. Did the city need to compensate property owners for that, or was it just a matter of using city property?

I know for sure they used setbacks for the bus queue jump lanes on Centre St N, and that needed land acquisition and expensive retaining walls in some spots.

 

[CBBarnett]

I don't understand why nothing is being done with the setback. There's enough room for wider sidewalks and/or trees

Option 1 appears to be using the setback on the North side, right? Cost would be one reason to not use all the setbacks - moving 1 curb for the whole corridor on the north side is a lot cheaper than moving curbs on both sides the whole corridor. Perhaps there's some utility lines in the mix under there as the area is originally laid out in the 1940s - 1960s, I'd imagine it's not always consistent below the ground. But otherwise I fully agree - use the setback or don't bother having one.

My vote is for Option 1, but at road level rather than elevated for reasons other mentioned. It's just super smooth and easier to cycle.

As for parking - I am completely unsympathetic to a loss of street parking on this corridor, 90% of the corridor has 1 or 2 car garages in low density infills - there's not a real issue here, except for a typical unwillingness to challenge the practice of storing private property on public right-of-way for free in perpetuity. Further, the case for cycling here seem particularly strong, it isn't some imaginary corridor that is dreaming of being more cycling friendly - it's already is quite popular it seems. There is some really dangerous spots due to no cycling protections or just painted lanes (that randomly end), combined with steep rolling hills, and speeding vehicles.

Where street parking seems particularly congested is a strange cluster of pretty full parking between 20th and Crowchild, where all developments are low density, have 1 or 2 car garages, yet the street is often fairly full. Between 20th and 17th ish, it gets remarkably empty for several blocks, then starts to pick up again when it gets into the higher density apartments near Bankview and 17th ish. West of Crowchild parking has already been removed on 1 side the whole stretch and everyone has garages. Trade-offs have to be made somewhere in these kinds of things, I really don't think this is one that has a compelling parking argument.

Overall whatever is decided will be a major improvement - that dangerous but always popular stretch from Crowchild to 14th really needs a high-quality connection. Any of the options would produce a cycling quality infinitely superior (and safer) to current, for the majority of users.

 

[Surrealplaces]

The river pathway between East Village, and Eau Claire is almost completely finished.

The shrubs are starting to cover up the flood barrier walls, hopefully that trend continues.

 

[lemongrab]

I had a front row seat to witness one of my biggest concerns with some of the latest cycling infrastructure play out (the ups and downs and ups and downs at intersections on 24 Ave NW, Montgomery, etc)

I was driving WB on Bowness Road and the second car in line to turn left onto the little 49 St connector to 16 Ave (Dairy Queen). Unfortunately google streetview is from the right hand lane, but it was equally difficult to understand the design/rules of the crossing for cyclists using the path: https://goo.gl/maps/yqRnr8wSoNRtHxDL6

A long line of EB cars passed through the intersection, followed by a slow(ish) moving cyclist on the cycle track. Of course the driver in front of me started to turn across the cyclist, who thankfully anticipated this, and they ended up with a brief Mexican Standoff with the car stopped in the intersection as cyclist waved him through. Not really even a near miss, but a messy situation that I imagine happens frequently with these designs.

Processing events from my viewpoint it was obvious how it would unfold, but I also recognize that my own brain didn't have an immediate answer to what the cyclist could/would/should do there...my brain processed the cyclist as riding on the sidewalk, and not as an on road vehicle that OBVIOUSLY had the ROW. I don't think the 4 inches of elevation gained on top of the curb made them any more visible - certainly not enough to offset the perception of them being 'off the roadway'.

Of course, the answer would simply be caution and to yield to the active users, but I can also see myself making a similar mistake as the driver in front in those particular circumstances, despite knowing better.


So this goes to a commonly misunderstood factoid - riding through a crosswalk is not illegal, but you only get pedestrian ROW if you dismount...though I'm not sure I've ever found a crystal clear explanation of whether a cyclist must dismount if they have a 'WALK' signal at a controlled intersection. I think these cycle track designs foster more of these ambiguous situations


To break it down a little further:

https://goo.gl/maps/kz6HCG8vxZS46ABSA

Here we see the asphalt blend into the cement at the signalled intersection...presumably the letter of the law is that a cyclist must dismount if they want the ROW, and must therefore follow the pedestrian signals - which likely turn to 'Don't Walk' well before vehicles get amber/red (likely true in my situation)...

...but actually, maybe it is a continuous 'cycle track' based on these already fading dashed lines on each side of the nearly completely faded crosswalk lines? Or is this just a new, wider crosswalk design? https://goo.gl/maps/cQXE7kfVN1ziwaX58


Google doesn't really get me the answer, though maybe it's buried somewhere in the Traffic Safety Act.

https://www.calgary.ca/roads/safety/sharing-with-cyclists.html - nothing here about those dashed lines...

https://www.alberta.ca/errors.aspx

Only pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks. Only if a cyclist dismounts and walks their bike across a crosswalk are they a pedestrian.

Let's go back a half block - https://goo.gl/maps/WwiwSTQxk5ZE67tE6 - does a cyclist have ROW to ride through here without dismounting? Of course a pedestrian would have the ROW, as would a vehicle proceeding straight, but does a mounted cyclist on the 'wrong' side of the curb lose their status as a 'vehicle'? Logically of course they should have a ROW, but it's also possible to arrive at a different meaning from the quote above.


I dunno, just a long rant that cycling infrastructure should not make things more confusing for all users compared to a cyclist simply taking the lane on the roadway. I've never cared much about physical separation when cycling a block - I just want to be safe at intersections!

Going back to 26th SW, this is why I really hope the wheeling lanes are at road level, and they do a better job of delineating intersections.

 

[whatchyyc]

I had a front row seat to witness one of my biggest concerns with some of the latest cycling infrastructure play out (the ups and downs and ups and downs at intersections on 24 Ave NW, Montgomery, etc)

I was driving WB on Bowness Road and the second car in line to turn left onto the little 49 St connector to 16 Ave (Dairy Queen). Unfortunately google streetview is from the right hand lane, but it was equally difficult to understand the design/rules of the crossing for cyclists using the path: https://goo.gl/maps/yqRnr8wSoNRtHxDL6

A long line of EB cars passed through the intersection, followed by a slow(ish) moving cyclist on the cycle track. Of course the driver in front of me started to turn across the cyclist, who thankfully anticipated this, and they ended up with a brief Mexican Standoff with the car stopped in the intersection as cyclist waved him through. Not really even a near miss, but a messy situation that I imagine happens frequently with these designs.

Processing events from my viewpoint it was obvious how it would unfold, but I also recognize that my own brain didn't have an immediate answer to what the cyclist could/would/should do there...my brain processed the cyclist as riding on the sidewalk, and not as an on road vehicle that OBVIOUSLY had the ROW. I don't think the 4 inches of elevation gained on top of the curb made them any more visible - certainly not enough to offset the perception of them being 'off the roadway'.

Of course, the answer would simply be caution and to yield to the active users, but I can also see myself making a similar mistake as the driver in front in those particular circumstances, despite knowing better.


So this goes to a commonly misunderstood factoid - riding through a crosswalk is not illegal, but you only get pedestrian ROW if you dismount...though I'm not sure I've ever found a crystal clear explanation of whether a cyclist must dismount if they have a 'WALK' signal at a controlled intersection. I think these cycle track designs foster more of these ambiguous situations


To break it down a little further:

https://goo.gl/maps/kz6HCG8vxZS46ABSA

Here we see the asphalt blend into the cement at the signalled intersection...presumably the letter of the law is that a cyclist must dismount if they want the ROW, and must therefore follow the pedestrian signals - which likely turn to 'Don't Walk' well before vehicles get amber/red (likely true in my situation)...

...but actually, maybe it is a continuous 'cycle track' based on these already fading dashed lines on each side of the nearly completely faded crosswalk lines? Or is this just a new, wider crosswalk design? https://goo.gl/maps/cQXE7kfVN1ziwaX58


Google doesn't really get me the answer, though maybe it's buried somewhere in the Traffic Safety Act.

https://www.calgary.ca/roads/safety/sharing-with-cyclists.html - nothing here about those dashed lines...

https://www.alberta.ca/errors.aspx



Let's go back a half block - https://goo.gl/maps/WwiwSTQxk5ZE67tE6 - does a cyclist have ROW to ride through here without dismounting? Of course a pedestrian would have the ROW, as would a vehicle proceeding straight, but does a mounted cyclist on the 'wrong' side of the curb lose their status as a 'vehicle'? Logically of course they should have a ROW, but it's also possible to arrive at a different meaning from the quote above.


I dunno, just a long rant that cycling infrastructure should not make things more confusing for all users compared to a cyclist simply taking the lane on the roadway. I've never cared much about physical separation when cycling a block - I just want to be safe at intersections!

Going back to 26th SW, this is why I really hope the wheeling lanes are at road level, and they do a better job of delineating intersections.

Elephant's Feet | City of North Vancouver

Elephant’s Feet are dots that are parallel to crosswalk markings that tell cyclists they do not need to dismount as they would at a regular crosswalk.

www.cnv.org

(At least in North Vancouver) it means cyclists don't have to dismount through the crossing. Crazy that the meaning of the lines aren't written down for anybody to know what they mean...

 

[lemongrab]

Elephant's Feet | City of North Vancouver

Elephant’s Feet are dots that are parallel to crosswalk markings that tell cyclists they do not need to dismount as they would at a regular crosswalk.

www.cnv.org

(At least in North Vancouver) it means cyclists don't have to dismount through the crossing. Crazy that the meaning of the lines aren't written down for anybody to know what they mean...

Maybe we can find paint that lasts more than 2 years while we are at it.

I feel like there is reasonable understanding that green paint = cyclist space, so green elephant feet might be the optimal. This is where I'd rather 'cheap out' on the travel sections and invest more heavily at intersections, even if that just means frequent re-painting.

It feels like it shouldn't be impossible to have some sort of motion activated light-up sign to highlight when the cycle path is occupied (obviously nowhere near a failsafe solution, but every bit helps)

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Maybe we can find paint that lasts more than 2 years while we are at it.

I feel like there is reasonable understanding that green paint = cyclist space, so green elephant feet might be the optimal. This is where I'd rather 'cheap out' on the travel sections and invest more heavily at intersections, even if that just means frequent re-painting.

It feels like it shouldn't be impossible to have some sort of motion activated light-up sign to highlight when the cycle path is occupied (obviously nowhere near a failsafe solution, but every bit helps)

One other thing that green paint would help indicate is that there is a continuous path through for cyclists; the first example (at 17 Ave just east of the gas station), the asphalt for cyclists ends some distance before the intersection and it would not necessarily be clear for an unfamiliar cyclist (at reasonable cycling speed) especially under poor light conditions whether there is a curb or not. From here:

a cyclist has around 3 seconds to decide whether there's a curb or not. The tactile pavement is clear, and that's obviously a curb cut, but is the elephant foot area smooth?

I think green paint would help with that as well; reassure the cyclist that there's a smooth path.

Of course, a raised crosswalk/crosspath would provide the best solution; smooth and safe path for pedestrians and cyclists, clear indication to drivers, actual physical device to slow drivers crossing. But if we're going to do half-measures at intersections, let's do half full rather than half empty.

 

[lemongrab]

^With a sign pole obstacle to boot.

I wonder if some of the thinking (if there is any) is to force cyclists to slow down a bit...but I think we either have an instinct for self preservation or we don't.

Navigating all of these little obstacles inherently takes at least some attention away from simply assessing the vehicles around you. Not to mention the numerous driveways all around these intersections.

The lane choices are also kinda interesting here. EB from the bridge Bowness Rd quite quickly goes from 1 to 2 to 3 lanes (LH and RH turn lanes at Home Rd), back to 1 lane. Nothing terribly wrong with it, but I wonder if it's too much vehicle prioritization when you consider a lot of the traffic is taking a 'shortcut' instead of using 16th/Home Rd (admittedly a guilty habit of mine). I don't think it would've taken much more to retain business access while reducing the appeal of the shortcut. Awfully nit-picky, and I'm sure there is a degree of appeasement required to get this built one way or another.


I suppose my ultimate thesis statement is that I hate the 'Paint if not protection' complaints. Paint is all we'll ever get at most intersections, and it could be the most effective change we could make. Of course, it isn't as flashy and doesn't make for nice pictures or statistics. I'm sure these projects are an improvement for certain users, but I think we could get a lot of better bang for our buck.

 

[Col du Edworthy]

For those in the know, any theories on why raised crosswalks are so rare in Calgary? They just seem to make so much sense to all users, except for the perceived inconvenience of cars having to slow down to cross them