[AJX]

If 11th street underpass has two lanes for vehicles I’m not going to lose sleep over it, but it would be a progressive move for the city to make it only cycle/pedestrian.

 

[darwink]

If 11th street underpass has two lanes for vehicles I’m not going to lose sleep over it, but it would be a progressive move for the city to make it only cycle/pedestrian.

Same. I think it is easy for the young to focus on the battle not the campaign; the tactics not the strategy. And that’s fine. Challenges our assumptions

I think 11th going pedestrian would be the last road diet in the centre city for awhile however and may spark a symbolic political backlash that we can’t predict the results of. The ‘war on cars’ in Toronto was taking a five lane road to four lanes. Yet caused many projects to be delayed.

 

[CBBarnett]

Same. I think it is easy for the young to focus on the battle not the campaign; the tactics not the strategy. And that’s fine. Challenges our assumptions

I think 11th going pedestrian would be the last road diet in the centre city for awhile however and may spark a symbolic political backlash that we can’t predict the results of. The ‘war on cars’ in Toronto was taking a five lane road to four lanes. Yet caused many projects to be delayed.

on this point, the more advanced and more detailed plans for 8th Street SW are closer to the revolution we need than this debate on a minor street further west.

If 8th is actually built as imagined, it would be much more impactful that if 11th Street was the same, worse or better.

 

[CBBarnett]

Yeah 11th, not 12ave. And there are a ton of commuters who turn at 11th, the interchange at crow / bow is like 8 blocks further. If you don't hit a train, 11st is much faster. Also the whole interchange at crow / bow on 10Ave can be ridiculous, especially the Crowchild part. Anyway, stuff like this is about having a couple options, having a single route just leads to problems.

Yeah I get that, but still not buying it - in all scenarios you don’t skip Crow/Bow in this example. Plus you still have multiple options (11 Ave, 14th St, 8th St, 17th Ave etc) this is with or without 11th. So you still have multiple options even if it’s closed.

For sure, there’s several unique trips that would be theoretically longer without 11 ST crossing the tracks, but I can’t imagine all these trips actually adding up to a material amount of flow to necessitate grade separation for vehicles. It’s a niche benefit to really specific use cases.

 

[Surrealplaces]

As someone who cycles a fair bit, I'm happy to see 11th get proper cycling infrastructure. It'll be nice to see it go from 17th all the way to the Bow river. I confess that I also drive a fair bit, as there are many times when driving is required. For better or for worse, roads and vehicles will be around, but there's no reason we can't push for more cycling/pedestrian infrastructure. The least we can do is bring cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the city's core up to a point where people can get around easily and safely. Later maybe for the whole city, but that's a whole other discussion.
Personally I'd rather see extra money saved from not having vehicle lanes under 11th, go to a project like extending 5th street cycle track. A project that should have been done properly in the first place. or building a second pedestrian/cycle underpass at 7th street, maybe a cycle track along 6th ave through the core?. If the 11th ends up having vehicle lanes, that's fine, but keep it down to two lanes.

 

[Chinook Arch]

When discussing any individual road, I'd suggest that general theories of planning and transportation are relevant.

Why should we pedestrianize the street? Because pedestrianized spaces are good.

When people walk more than they drive, society is better off.

The way that we encourage people to walk more, is by making driving less convenient. Yes, you heard me right.

I believe people live happier, healthier, more productive lives when they don't drive as much.


So yes, I believe we should pedestrianize 11th St SW, because I believe we should pedestrianize A LOT of urban streets.

I'm not saying we need to ban cars or anything ridiculous like that.

But I think that we need to radically reshape our urban environment to prioritize walking, cycling, and transit.

And the way you do that is one street at a time.



Below, I expand on some of the general arguments that define this worldview.


Everyones different, but trends are trends and statistical probability is a thing. You're more likely to get cancer if you smoke and you're more likely to smash into the ground if you skydive.

If you choose to actively commute every day instead of drive, your cardiovascular health will improve and you'll live longer.

This relationship has been observed in many studies, such as this one in the British Medical Journal.

They found that people who bike to work are living longer than people who drive or take transit to work. The connection between bike commuting and lower mortality is "independent of sex, age, deprivation, ethnicity, smoking status, recreational and occupational physical activity, sedentary behaviour, dietary patterns, and other confounding factors"

Considering this, it's in our economic best interest to encourage all people to live a life that is best for their health.



*Fist Bump*




I think it's well documented that pedestrian focused streets are more commercially viable.

Inevitably, if you make an area more enjoyable for folks, more businesses will want to open around it.

When an area has good amenities, restaurants, etc, more residential goes in, which encourages the commercial. etc. etc.




Induced demand is always relevant. When we make driving an option, someone will drive.

When we create areas for people to walk, people will walk. I'd refer back to my opening treatise here.




"Ban" isn't really a thing I want to do.

I'd rather talk about creating spaces that are more attractive to pedestrians.

We're in an environment now where no one really has a choice. Everything is car centric.

I think when we create spaces that are hospitable to pedestrians, the market typically decides, and people go to where they're able to walk.

I don't think we need to ban cars, I think we need to give people the opportunity to live a life without cars.




Yeah this is fair. I was engaging in hyperbole, and I'm sure due to the limitations of text and probably too much smarm on my end, I wasn't communicating well.

I'm sure in the grand spectrum of things, people who are on this forum are much more pro-active mobility than others.


I'll finish my message with a general apology to folks on the forum for my tone in this thread. I was sounding too much like a troll.

Fair enough, I get where you’re coming from. It is unfortunate that we have a car centric Society for sure.
There are times when I enjoy driving because it makes my life easier or gives me freedom to do certain things, but at the same time, it would be great to be less reliant on it.
A difficult task for city as spread out as Calgary or for any other North American city for that matter, but at least if we can work toward getting a part of Calgary (like downtown and Beltline) to be nondependent on cars that would be good progress.

 

[Mountain Man]

I think Calgary has done a great job in recent years, lots of bike infrastructure and pedestrian safety initiatives. 33rd and 34th will be the biggest test of how to turn a street that is totally hostile to pedestrians into something better.

There are some major fails though. The Underwood / First Street Market on 1st is totally underserved with loading areas for a busy place, so the sidewalk on 14th has become the loading zone and is definitely hostile to pedestrians. Also, the sidewalk is covered in oil stains and is already crumbling from all the heavy vehicles that park on it. 2 steps forward and 1 step back in this city...

 

[Beltline_B]

I totally get why people want or need to drive vehicles, I’m in the same boat. I’ve got kids and I have in-laws who are senior citizens and using a car is by far the most convenient way to get them around to the places they need to go, many things aren't doable without a car, and it would be difficult for me to live my daily life without a vehicle. I chalk it up as kind of the unfortunate nature of the world we live in, especially in a North American city.
I also get how some people with less needs to rely on a vehicle, would want to live a lifestyle where they can do everything without one.
If the Beltline/Downtown, for example had two or three more big box urban format stores, like a Walmart, and a Winners… maybe another grocer like a superstore, maybe a Homesense and Bulk barn, those kinds of things .You’d have most the shopping that you would need to cover most of daily life. Restaurants and other amenities are already covered.
If Calgary can continue building up its core (downtown and Beltline) by adding density and building up infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as build better infrastructure connections to adjacent neighborhoods, like Sunalta, Kensington, Inglewood, etc. it’s quite realistic that someday Calgary’s core could be its own city within a city where people can live and go about life without the need of a car. I mean you can kind of do that today but it’s not quite there for everybody at this point. But realistically it can be.

 

[Patrick.1980]

I’ve got kids and I have in-laws who are senior citizens and using a car is by far the most convenient way to get them around to the places they need to go, many things aren't doable without a car, and it would be difficult for me to live my daily life without a vehicle. I

That’s the situation most of us are in, especially if you’re not right in the core. I live just past 20th Ave., NW, an area which many consider to be inner city, an area that has decent walk ability, but it’s still quite difficult to live life without a car especially with kids.

I’ll give you a perfect example. A couple of years ago, our neighbours who have two children decided they would live a car free lifestyle. For the past 2 or 3 years they have been getting everybody in sight to drive them and their kids around. Their parents drove their kids to school most days and anywhere else the kids needed to go. My wife drove their kids to various events and also to the doctor a few times. I drove them to Home Depot and IKEA a couple of times. Other neighbours have been chipping in.

At the end of the day, it wasn’t a car free lifestyle.It was for them, but not for everybody else. Most of the neighbours stopped giving them rides and I think their parents put pressure on them to get a car and they finally got one again.

Anyhow, enough about that rant. I think if they were living downtown or Beltline, Mission, they could do that lifestyle much easier. For instance they were always relying on somebody to give their kids a lift to the doctor, but in the Beltline they could just walk to the Schumir.

 

[Ramsayite]

So maybe nobody has told you this before, but there's a certain stage in adulthood, where only being able to converse in hyperbolic sarcasm begins to reflect poorly on you, no matter what your argument is. Now maybe you haven't reached that stage (it took me well into my late 20s, although I've never been a Mensa candidate) but perhaps it's something to consider. Agree or disagree with the topic, it's all good... but let's tone down the snark and bring something tangible to the conversation.

Imagine being so offended by sarcasm that you launch into a condescending tone-policing lecture about it.

" When you grow up little kid you'll also be able to have a logical, serious conversation about how every single right of way in a city needs access for personal vehicles"

The city is absolutely covered in right of ways for personal vehicles. Losing a single one is hardly the inconvenience that you think it is.

Until you're using the same energy to advocate for protected cyclist infrastructure on every single right of way also, then you're pretty much arguing from your own uninspected car dependency obsession. Why should the default be cars on every road, but only good cycling and pedestrian infrastructure where we can afford to put it? Small town provincial backwater mindset..

Maybe when you grow up you'll get a chance to travel the world and see how other cities do things.


Oops sorry is that too sarcastic?

 

[DiscoStu]

Oops sorry is that too sarcastic?

Nope, perfect amount, thanks!

 

[CBBarnett]

I totally get why people want or need to drive vehicles, I’m in the same boat, I’ve got kids and I have in-laws who are senior citizens and using a car is by far the best way to get them around to the places they need to go. It would be difficult for me to live my daily life without a vehicle. I chalk it up as kind of the unfortunate nature of the world we live in, especially in a North American city.
I also get how some people with less needs to rely on a vehicle, would want to live a lifestyle where they can do everything without one.
If the Beltline, for example, had two or three more big box urban format stores, like a Walmart, and a Winners… maybe another grocer like a superstore .You’d have most the shopping that you would need to cover most of daily life. Restaurants and other amenities are already covered.
If Calgary can continue building up its core (downtown and Beltline) by adding density and building up infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as build better infrastructure connections to adjacent neighborhoods, like Sunalta, Kensington, Inglewood, etc. it’s quite realistic that someday Calgary’s core could be its own city within a city where people can live and go about life without the need of a car. I mean you can kind of do that today but it’s not quite there for everybody at this point. But realistically it can be.

I like this optimistic vision and totally agree, it's certainly possible to be car-free or car-lite today for some people and lifestyles, but can be so much better for more people if we continue to improve the inner city and keep adding to our already good areas with more amenities, transit and walking infrastructure.

What I find unhelpful is the status quo myth that "we can't/shouldn't do (insert random non-car project or project element here) because everyone drives!" as if this is some sort of law of physics universally applied to all people, contexts, locations and times. Take 11th Street for example - it's a minor speck in the grand scheme of the car-dominated transportation network, but a far more critical one for the local and pedestrian network. Literally the main reason to even revisit the corridor in the first place is to deal with pedestrian safety and delay issues from the train crossing. Even here this "cars belong everywhere because everyone drives" belief comes through.

Firstly, this myth has never has been been true, and certainly doesn't have to be true in the future. Everyone under 15 doesn't drive, loads of people with medical/physical limitations reasons don't drive, lots of people lose their ability to drive as they hit their later senior years. Even among the healthy and of age population, even today there are many car free or car-lite people living in our city, for a variety of choice and cost reasons. Important for the specific 11th Street context - this is exactly where those car-free and car-lite people live in greatest concentration city and likely province-wide. So if anywhere where myth is "least true" - it's here.

Secondly, even if the myth was true - that everyone drives therefore everything, everywhere should cater to cars in some degree - we often forget it's not a unquestionable good thing that this myth is true. There's the whole list of well-known downsides:

• For the public, it's incredibly expensive to provide all that infrastructure for cars, everywhere, most often designed for high-speeds and high capacity in all situations (a vehicle underpass v. a pedestrian one have different cost scales). This makes us build less stuff than we could have, at higher costs - and therefore higher taxes, fees and budget issues to support all of it.
• For people, car dependence directly contributes to affordability challenges of many - payments, insurance, repairs, fuel/electricity. Want to talk about affordability and equity? Well forcing people to have a car and refusing to invest in alternatives is a good way to perpetually have affordability crises in the bottom half of the income spectrum.
• It's space consuming and offers many problems of safety and pollution. Cars kill and injure people all the time - thousands of injuries in Calgary each year.

So winding it all up to a few points:

1. Cars are often a good and productive tool for many people, but that does not mean they make sense to cater to everywhere - especially in areas that have all the other building blocks required to break free of total car dependence (i.e. walkable, high-density communities with grocery stores and strong pedestrian preferences already).
2. We should be far more nuanced and critical about car infrastructure costs and projects, many of our car "needs" for infrastructure are "wants" - our system has been biased towards car commuting for so long, we have so much redundant circulations, capacities everywhere. If we look more closely I think we will find that many car circulation "needs" are just really expensive "wants".
3. The future is uncertain and subject to the influence of our choices today - people aren't by default, drivers. Cars aren't by default, the only way to get around. Cars are unlikely to disappear but they certainly don't have to play such a dominant and expensive roles as they do today, in all areas, all the time. They will continue to do so if we assume they will though.
4. Car-free and car-lite places are cheaper, safer and better for living - we should build more of these everywhere - it's hardly a goal to ban cars, it's a goal to have enough places and options so that we don't all need spend 20 - 30% of our total personal and public wealth on a single mode of transportation in perpetuity.

on 11th Street:

1. For cars: grade-separation seems poor value given the costs, context, redundant circulations available, and little long term prospect of the corridor gaining any further importance for vehicles.
2. For pedestrians: Pedestrian environment and safety is worth investing in both due to cheaper costs, context and longer-term transition the neighbourhood is experiencing.

 

[haltcatchfire]

For cost/value concerns at 11st what about at grade vehicle lanes (single lane each way) next to an underpass for pedestrians and cycling? Would be an interesting compromise, that comes with the benefit of drivers being delayed by trains but not pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[CBBarnett]

For cost/value concerns at 11st what about at grade vehicle lanes (single lane each way) next to an underpass for pedestrians and cycling? Would be an interesting compromise, that comes with the benefit of drivers being delayed by trains but not pedestrians and cyclists.

Given the width of the corridor, maybe the cost is actually more similar that we think between an all modes v. peds/bicycles only? I can't imagine it would be close - but it's a really hard question to answer from random googling examples that aren't really comparable.

Here's an example from Whitefish of an underpass of somewhat similar dimensions of a minimum build - 120 feet long, 20 feet wide and 10 feet tall. Came in at $1.7M (USD, 2021). Works out to about $2.6M CAD in today's dollars : link

Hardly comparable in scale, but the 2011 4th Street SW underpass is our recent local example. From 2011, came in at $70M. Works out to about $92M in today's dollars. link

It's total apples and oranges for these random examples, but I would guess a more informed analysis would point to a cheaper pedestrian underpass. The question is how much cheaper and if it's materially worth it.

 

[haltcatchfire]

We can call it Solomon's crossing.

I am the wisest man to ever live, not Solomon. We shall name it after me instead.