Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Just spitballing here, but if CT wanted to speed up the bus on 16 st, perhaps the might reconsider stopping every 200 meters.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Cowtown
- Start date
BrandedBlue
New Member
Agree with all the points being made. It's unfortunate that Calgary Transit is such a strong opponent of any street safety or traffic calming measures that may require busses to slow down.
As another example, here's an excerpt from the 2020 report on potential speed limit reductions, and the expected operation cost impact provided by CT. The details on these calculations are not publicly available but I have a hunch that it was an overly simplified calculation that doesn't account for the reality that in urban environments, busses rarely have the chance to get up to 50 km/h due to bus stops, stop signs/lights, traffic congestion etc.
These operating cost estimates weighted the cost-benefit results in favour of options that affected transit routes the least, like the 50 collector/40 residential option that ended up being recommended to council.
lemongrab
Active Member
^Sounds like some absurd assumptions to get those numbers. Like if a route needed 2 buses for 15 minute frequency on a 29 minute long route, they'd definitely go to 3 buses if the route became 30 minutes 10 seconds long.
Not to mention the likely shift to transit on demand in a lot of communities - ie. the places where the speed limit changes would actually impact may not even work to a fixed schedule.
Not to mention the likely shift to transit on demand in a lot of communities - ie. the places where the speed limit changes would actually impact may not even work to a fixed schedule.
whatchyyc
Active Member
Call me crazy but I think buses should also go slow through residential areas
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I wish the Calgary Transit staff who zealously defend keeping traffic speeds dangerous so that they can save precious seconds, even though it loses customers* could like go for lunch with the Calgary Transit staff who are incredibly uninterested in things like stop consolidation, Kassel curbs or all-door boarding that would save precious seconds.
* since buses will always have to slow down to stop, higher speed limits just make it faster to get places in cars relative to buses. Also, every bus rider is also a pedestrian, and higher speed limits make walking to/from the bus less pleasant and more dangerous.
* since buses will always have to slow down to stop, higher speed limits just make it faster to get places in cars relative to buses. Also, every bus rider is also a pedestrian, and higher speed limits make walking to/from the bus less pleasant and more dangerous.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Great opportunity to once again plug the master-class in both design but also communicating about this topic, Translink:
https://www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/bus-projects/bus-stop-balancing
Translink uses a 300 - 800m spacing guideline on bus routes, with nuance to key destinations, large hills or specific user groups like seniors. But they emphatically and publicly highlight they are pro-stop consolidation to improve their service.
KrisYYC
New Member
Apologies if this has been discussed already, but would Elbow Drive be a good candidate for a dedicated bike lane? Speed limit is 50km/h the entire road, basically takes you to downtown from as far South as Canyon Meadows.
outoftheice
Active Member
If anyone has a few seconds to spare to fill out a 311 request, I came across this campaign on Twitter. I completely agree with the person that this location is a logical place for a crosswalk and have personally jaywalked at the spot many times over the years. The area Councillor seems indifferent about this stuff so hopefully multiple 311 complaints will make him take notice.
As a cyclist I would like to see a bike lane there, but it is a pretty busy road, and they would have to sacrifice a lane which wouldn't go over well. Hypothetically if the city could pull it off without the creation of a lynch mob, it would be a good candidate. It's very central and goes a long distance. Currently cycling arteries to the south suck badly unless you are close to the river, having one on Elbow Drive would have great catchment.
The other possibility is the city gets it's head out of its ass and finally decides to make use of the setbacks. That way you could build one without taking away driving lanes.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Elbow Drive would be the only logical link for a SW cycling route as it's the only N-S axis that isn't a total car sewer, has reasonable density of local destinations and schools, and is totally connective from inner city through to the south.
From a car traffic volume perspective, the volumes on Elbow Drive south of Glenmore to Canyon Meadows have decreased from 20 - 25,000 vehicles a day today to 10,000 - 15,000 vehicles a day 30 years ago. Politics and anti-bicycle bias aside, would be easy to take a lane from Fish Creek Park to Glenmore. This is a result of long-term decline in local population in all areas along the corridor, zero major growth prospects, and increasing capacity on nearby routes like the ring road and 14th Street. Around Glenmore and to the north it gets trickier as the volumes are higher, but it's actually a small stretch where the volumes remain high. Setbacks are huge though so you could easily do it.
Is the juice worth the squeeze to get a bicycle path on Elbow? My biases suggest probably not, given the typical response of these declining communities, while many faster growing, denser and more cycling friendly areas are clamouring for investment. There are many local destinations but few areas of employment and remarkably low densities for most of the corridor.
An Elbow drive high-quality pathway would be the exact type of thing we would build if our plans were followed 100% of the time, our complete street principles were always considered to the full extent, and our investments were rationally rolled out in all areas of the city. It would never be the highest priority, but does totally makes sense. From a practical sense it gets docked marks on how likely of a zoo it would be with loud old folks who love driving on empty wide roads in giant sprawling, increasingly empty communities.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
It's a great choice; it's direct and there are better car alternatives available for north-south travel. Elbow doesn't need to be four lanes for almost any of it's length; it's not a very high volume road; mostly in the 20K range. It's really a no-brainer; assuming the City wanted to respond to a climate emergency or had policies indicating that a high-quality cycling network was important, a cycle track on Elbow should be a quick win and a high priority.
On the other hand, if the complaints of wealthy people who might feel like they weren't getting everything they wanted were the most important thing, then it would be very difficult to build a bike lane on Elbow.
On the other hand, if the complaints of wealthy people who might feel like they weren't getting everything they wanted were the most important thing, then it would be very difficult to build a bike lane on Elbow.
I fear exactly that. There would be a huge backlash from people of influence, who are adjacent to much of the corridor. I'd like to see it happen, but I think opposition would be too strong at the moment.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
What's easier (cheaper/more likely to happen)?
Macleod becoming a complete street?
Elbow becoming a complete street?
IMO it's Elbow. South of Glenmore it could quite easily add density. Issue areas I see with this are the NB left onto Sifton, Elbow and Lansdown (just build a proper traffic circle). Once you're beyond there it actually gets relatively easy. The city does have a ROW that is there's.
Macleod becoming a complete street?
Elbow becoming a complete street?
IMO it's Elbow. South of Glenmore it could quite easily add density. Issue areas I see with this are the NB left onto Sifton, Elbow and Lansdown (just build a proper traffic circle). Once you're beyond there it actually gets relatively easy. The city does have a ROW that is there's.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The City's 5A network does recommend a pathway be built along Elbow Drive SW to Glenmore Trail. Once south of Glenmore, it recommends an on-street bikeway. No design or funding yet that I know of, but that is the long term plan.
KrisYYC
New Member
Interesting. I live in Haysboro so I'm close to Elbow just south of Heritage. To my layman's eyes, it seems there's space for a dedicated bike lane without the need to remove a lane for cars if they used up some of the grass space between the current sidewalk and the street. But I doubt that would ever been in the budget here, and would probably be opposed strongly by NIMBY's. Even though I have to drive to work due to working out of the Airport at irregular hours and days, it would be nice to see something. Maybe more of a possibility now that the Heritage Communities local area plan was approved?