Joborule
Active Member
8th is open, but awkward to access.
Technically there's another access to SB 14 Street from Bow Trail/Crowchild, but that one is even more awkward access.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
Technically there's another access to SB 14 Street from Bow Trail/Crowchild, but that one is even more awkward access.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
There is no reason to close this off to cars, there is enough space to accommodate all users. Just make the bike lane protected, I've had too many close calls on 11th and avoid it at all costs now. This is a major transit connection as well, so the sidewalks need to be nice and wide.
Golfing guy
Active Member
I’m all for bike lanes/cycle tracks and wider sidewalks. But to shut car access off completely on important links is going to far. We’re no where close to being a bike/walking only city. Cars are essential still
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Agreed - car access is fine to have, subject to the limits of cost or space.
My argument is that any trade-offs required as this project comes together should come at expense of car-capacity, not the sidewalks or cycling accesses as both of those are more important in this specific highly dense, urban and pedestrian context. Trade-offs can include right up to not including cars at all.
My frustration/fear is we usually make trade-offs the other way, narrowing the sidewalks, designing a half-effort cycling facility so cars can keep cushy wide lanes and the road capacity is sufficient for 50 years of imaginary vehicle traffic growth and all turn access is preserved everywhere, all the time. A similar level of long-range growth assumptions are not factored into the widths of the sidewalks and cycling space width requirements.
Even a 2m wide sidewalk in some of the options is pretty narrow today once you consider the high volume of pedestrians moving in both directions, many of who are carrying bags from the nearby grocery stores, or are pushing strollers or carts. Add a few more decades of tower development nearby and it's a congested sidewalk. We have many other underpasses that can be pointed to where lack of pedestrian space is a bigger issue than lack of vehicle space for similar reasons.
What are those trade-off available to ensure budget and/or space is available for wider sidewalks and pathways and vehicles still get some space?
- Narrow the vehicles lanes
- Limit turning lanes and turning access
- Remove all the shoulder buffers and edges that always sneak into these designs
- Don't make it a truck route - narrows the lanes, reduces the required depth of the underpass to a minimum
Last edited:
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
Here's the 6 hour counts from 10th Ave / 11 St:
The cars are the ones crossing the tracks; the bikes are the bikes on the north approach only; the pedestrians are those crossing the avenue. (The counts support more detailed analysis of cars, for some reason.) The 2017 count was on an unseasonably crappy day in September; the high that day was 8; I suspect that's part of why the pedestrian volume is down there. In any case, the long term trend for much higher pedestrian use and the long term trend for limited car use are both clear. Only one of the 60 hours in these counts was there even 500 cars travelling in one direction over an hour; that was in 1992 when 506 cars came NB in the PM peak.
The cars are the ones crossing the tracks; the bikes are the bikes on the north approach only; the pedestrians are those crossing the avenue. (The counts support more detailed analysis of cars, for some reason.) The 2017 count was on an unseasonably crappy day in September; the high that day was 8; I suspect that's part of why the pedestrian volume is down there. In any case, the long term trend for much higher pedestrian use and the long term trend for limited car use are both clear. Only one of the 60 hours in these counts was there even 500 cars travelling in one direction over an hour; that was in 1992 when 506 cars came NB in the PM peak.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Forgetting a bunch of data collection caveats for a second - you can really see that it is pedestrian volumes that track with high-density development in this area, not vehicle volumes. All that development along 11 Street SW since the early 2000s - some 1,000+ units immediately on 11th Street, many more a block or two away - pushes the pedestrian numbers up but holds cars steady. Another 1,000 units nearby and pedestrian volumes may pass cars altogether. That's not that far away if trends continue; perhaps 3 - 5 more towers over the next 10 - 15 years which is easily doable given what's in the development pipeline nearby. Another reason pedestrians need to be the dominant focus here.
11 Street SW currently is never congested for vehicles, but has two main constraints - the much discussed train interference and the very long signal phases that prioritizes east-west movements on most streets 11th interacts with. We would solve the train crossing delay with the vehicle underpass (or by closing the crossing and forcing traffic to 8th or 14th Streets), The signal phasing is arguably a larger barrier to travelling efficiently along 11th by any modes which needs some attention too.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The recommended options have been posted, and have feedback open for them:
engage.calgary.ca
11 Street S.W. Underpass Functional Planning Study
The City of Calgary is undertaking a functional planning study for 11 Street S.W. / CP Rail project area.
engage.calgary.ca
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I'm glad they recommended the nonmotorized crossing -- and let me emphasize that, good job. But what a braindead design.
The functional need of an active mode underpass is two sidewalks, which they have designed at 2.0m each and two cycle lanes, at 1.5m each. That's 7m of width; up to 8.5m if you add the buffers planned on the sides of the cycle lanes.
I imagine it's really expensive to build a bridge under an active freight railroad, and the bigger the span, the more money it costs -- you both need sturdier horizontal beams to support the tracks, and to add columns if the span is wide enough.
The need is for a 7-8m underpass; the design is for a 23m wide underpass, wide enough to require columns in the middle supporting it. And for what? "Programmable space", which is architect-speak for "we don't even have an idea for what to do with this space at this point". If the underpass existed today with these dimensions, this would be an excellent design for how to use it. But it doesn't exist, and every metre of rail bridge costs millions. Why design three times what we need?
We can still have 90% of the public amenity space on either side of the underpass without the added cost, and it's the best 90% because it's not under an active freight railroad. Potentially there's enough room to add a little length to the sidewalks/cycle tracks so that the intersections at 9th and 10th don't have to be lowered by 0.5m either, another cost and disruption savings.
Would it be as nice as the plan? Absolutely not. But it would probably cost a small fraction of the plan, and instead of being a $75 million plan on the books, maybe it could be a $15 million project open and making people's lives better. And I suspect it's also more politically feasible -- a lot of people think that every road needs to have cars all the time, and when they ask "why are there no cars here?" the answer "we're saving you $60,000,000" will go a long way.
All for what is essentially the same as this:
It was dumb 60 years ago and it's dumb now.
The functional need of an active mode underpass is two sidewalks, which they have designed at 2.0m each and two cycle lanes, at 1.5m each. That's 7m of width; up to 8.5m if you add the buffers planned on the sides of the cycle lanes.
I imagine it's really expensive to build a bridge under an active freight railroad, and the bigger the span, the more money it costs -- you both need sturdier horizontal beams to support the tracks, and to add columns if the span is wide enough.
The need is for a 7-8m underpass; the design is for a 23m wide underpass, wide enough to require columns in the middle supporting it. And for what? "Programmable space", which is architect-speak for "we don't even have an idea for what to do with this space at this point". If the underpass existed today with these dimensions, this would be an excellent design for how to use it. But it doesn't exist, and every metre of rail bridge costs millions. Why design three times what we need?
We can still have 90% of the public amenity space on either side of the underpass without the added cost, and it's the best 90% because it's not under an active freight railroad. Potentially there's enough room to add a little length to the sidewalks/cycle tracks so that the intersections at 9th and 10th don't have to be lowered by 0.5m either, another cost and disruption savings.
Would it be as nice as the plan? Absolutely not. But it would probably cost a small fraction of the plan, and instead of being a $75 million plan on the books, maybe it could be a $15 million project open and making people's lives better. And I suspect it's also more politically feasible -- a lot of people think that every road needs to have cars all the time, and when they ask "why are there no cars here?" the answer "we're saving you $60,000,000" will go a long way.
All for what is essentially the same as this:
It was dumb 60 years ago and it's dumb now.
FCC1982
Active Member
Totally agree.
Would be stupid to go to the effort & expense of building an underpass below the CPR tracks and then not allow vehicles to use it.
More connections between downtown & Beltline the better.
There is plenty of room for all modes of transportation here (including vehicles) and still lots of green space as shown in the Alternate Plan.
FCC1982
Active Member
Exactly.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Platform says hello.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, its a massive waste to over-build under the tracks, maximize the other areas. If you're only going to allow non-motorized transport through here create a public space.
Also, IMO if they're going to make this non-motorized there has to be a good alternative to access this portion of the beltline. 14th could be that but the whole bow trail and 14th street thing is so bad. I don't know when the soil will be cleaned up and they can do something with this area. That's probably 30+ years off with city trying to redevelop the East Village and now the C+E District. The city won't really care or can't because you know, money.
Only other option for that piece of land is giving some developer a blank cheque and paying for the redesigned road. Maybe CSEC's idea wasn't the worst...
Roaring Flames
Senior Member
If building this underpass as an active modes crossing results in a need for the city to rebuild the 14 street and bow trail interchange than it's more than worth it
artvandelay
Active Member
Interesting that budget nor cost/benefit analysis do not seem to be priorities based on the City's presentation of these options.
The idea of spending ~ $100 million to actually worsen connectivity from the status quo is completely absurd. If we are set accommodating active modes only, then an overhead bridge (23' clearance required) would provide better functionality and bang for buck.
It is still important to maintain vehicular links in order to facilitate the movement of goods and services, even if we are discouraging personal vehicle traffic.
The idea of spending ~ $100 million to actually worsen connectivity from the status quo is completely absurd. If we are set accommodating active modes only, then an overhead bridge (23' clearance required) would provide better functionality and bang for buck.
It is still important to maintain vehicular links in order to facilitate the movement of goods and services, even if we are discouraging personal vehicle traffic.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I agree with this - nothing prevents a park on either end but the really expensive part (by pedestrians/cycling infrastructure standards) is the underpass. Sure it'll be cheaper than a deeper and wider all-modes underpass, but the span needs to be nowhere close to that extensive to offer the full practical benefit of the active modes option. That should be fully tightened up and save all that capital for other things that make the connection even more valuable (e.g. like making permanent every cycletrack in the city centre, widen every sidewalk within 4 blocks etc.)
Essentially build this but with some more park amenities on either side:
If you can do it cheap enough by cutting out all the unnecessary width and depth in the park proposal you could probably build 3 of these underpasses at Sunalta, 11th, & 7 Street for the same price.
adamyyc
Active Member
I wonder how much of it might be future proofing (i.e., overbuild in case it has to be opened to vehicular traffic in the future).