Sidewalks of Calgary

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by GTING

Thank you! I have been thinking this for some time now...

Who in the city decides where to put the traffic light controlling boxes? These drive me nuts as they are often in the worst position for pedestrians.

Here is just a few examples:
Nowhere to walk here
This one drove me nuts when I worked in the Bow

We need more like this

There are dozens of others just like this in the downtown core.

That last one is good, edge of the sidewalk, protection, plus also protected by being behind the traffic light post in the direction of traffic.

[Jimby]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I walk like a motherfucker and I don't find sidewalks in Calgary that bad. Jimby doesn't your friend in Vancouver know Denman? Horribly narrow sidewalks for blocks there and don't get me started on the signed one way, lights the other intersections that abound there, which is why in one week I was nearly struck by cars 5 times. In Vancouver, where pedestrians are treated like excrement. Yes, I counted. Edmonton has these as well. And while you're not getting me started, I'm in Munich now where almost every sidewalk is shared with bikes- strip of asphalt for bike, stones for pedestrians but this isn't clearly signed almost anywhere and THE FUCKING BIKES RIDE ON THE PEDESTRIAN SIDE ANYWAY and some of the morons ride the wrong way- on a "bike lane" about a metre wide. There as so many cities that fuck the pedestrians over... including, I say again, Vancouver. Try being a pedestrian in Kuala Lumpur or the Chicago suburb where my mom lives. I could go and on, and on, and on. It sucks pretty much everywhere, including here in Olde Europe. Pedestrian zones abound but sidewalks prioritize these goddamned motherfucking bikes just as they did in Copenhagen.

BUT what grinds my gears was alluded to above: we have nothing close to the Americans with Disabilities Act and huge swaths of city, including my very block in Bankview, that have corners with ZERO curb cuts. How are people in wheelchairs supposed to be from 21st Ave to 17th Ave SW along 14 St? No curb cuts. You might as well lock those people in cages.

Friend from Vancouver wasn't criticizing Calgary sidewalks, I was. She really likes Calgary except for our weather - snow today!

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

This excites me more than any single tower project. I think Kensington BRZ has a new strategy to use part of the parking revenues in the area to fund public ream projects going forward. I hope the other BRZ's surrounding the core follow suit.

Kensington got a $4.5 million allocation of the Calgary Parking Authority surplus from a couple years ago. All of it is going to rehabbing the sidewalks across the entire BRZ. It certainly won't be the Cadillac sidewalks of East Village, but will be a very nice improvement. Things are deteriorating there - and the western end of Kensington Rd between 11a or so and 14th Street never originally got streetscape improvements. The sidewalks there currently are terrible.

Part of the strategy for Centre City and other BRZ areas is looking at earmarking parking revenue for public realm upgrades.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I walk like a motherfucker and I don't find sidewalks in Calgary that bad. Jimby doesn't your friend in Vancouver know Denman? Horribly narrow sidewalks for blocks there and don't get me started on the signed one way, lights the other intersections that abound there, which is why in one week I was nearly struck by cars 5 times. In Vancouver, where pedestrians are treated like excrement. Yes, I counted. Edmonton has these as well. And while you're not getting me started, I'm in Munich now where almost every sidewalk is shared with bikes- strip of asphalt for bike, stones for pedestrians but this isn't clearly signed almost anywhere and THE FUCKING BIKES RIDE ON THE PEDESTRIAN SIDE ANYWAY and some of the morons ride the wrong way- on a "bike lane" about a metre wide. There as so many cities that fuck the pedestrians over... including, I say again, Vancouver. Try being a pedestrian in Kuala Lumpur or the Chicago suburb where my mom lives. I could go and on, and on, and on. It sucks pretty much everywhere, including here in Olde Europe. Pedestrian zones abound but sidewalks prioritize these goddamned motherfucking bikes just as they did in Copenhagen.

BUT what grinds my gears was alluded to above: we have nothing close to the Americans with Disabilities Act and huge swaths of city, including my very block in Bankview, that have corners with ZERO curb cuts. How are people in wheelchairs supposed to be from 21st Ave to 17th Ave SW along 14 St? No curb cuts. You might as well lock those people in cages.

Can we also stop putting curb cuts so they point diagonally into the intersection? Especially where the curb cut doesn't even come out into the cross walk?

This should be the minimum standard for curb cuts.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Jimby

Ok who believes that anyone gave any thought to the pedestrian when they did this?
[

And the sidewalk on the south side of this street (2nd Avenue SW) - why couldn't a pedestrian use that side? Google Street View appears to show it to be quite open and pedestrian friendly.

While I agree that this picture provides a poor view of infrastructure design, at the same time not all is being seen here. Also, possibly there were some constraining factors at play here on the north side of 2nd Avenue - I'd dare say that when that parking lot on the north side get's redeveloped, that there will be a much more pedestrian friendly environment in place.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

And the sidewalk on the south side of this street (2nd Avenue SW) - why couldn't a pedestrian use that side? Google Street View appears to show it to be quite open and pedestrian friendly.

While I agree that this picture provides a poor view of infrastructure design, at the same time not all is being seen here. Also, possibly there were some constraining factors at play here on the north side of 2nd Avenue - I'd dare say that when that parking lot on the north side get's redeveloped, that there will be a much more pedestrian friendly environment in place.

Would you accept 25% lane width on a road? Similar situation here not only is it narrow but you have to go around a pole. Also should we put a pole part way into a lane so only motorcycles can get by safely?

As to going to the other side, are you ok with driving 2x as far or taking 4x as long to get to your destination? This isn't a temporary thing at minimum the pole should have been moved back from the road and the sidewalk been kept straight.

Oh and also the only reason the sidewalk is narrow is to allow for street parking next to a gigantic parking lot.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

While this isn't really a big pedestrian cooridor due to the rail tracks, the principle of this really infuriated me last night when we did walk by it.

Take away the lay-by that someone suggested and then you'll have people crabbing about parking being taken away.

And what of the sidewalk on the west side of 2nd Street SW here - is it wider? It certainly appears so on Google Street View - one could opt to cross over to the west side sidewalk.

Yes, I fully realize that there are many sub-standard facilities in the inner-city when it comes to pedestrian safety but one can find alternatives that are safe. It's sort like that guy who lives in Hillhurst who recently complained about the route his daughter has to take to get to her optional out-of-district school - his Twitter tale conveniently didn't include some very pedestrian friendly choices that were easily available plus very little mention was made of the fact that it was his family's choices that resulted in some negative pedestrian/commuting choices being introduced into their family's travels.

Of note, I live in an almost inner-city community and regularly travel into inner-city communities whether it be via an automobile, bicycle or walking and am well aware of infrastructure deficiencies when compared to suburbia. Some of these deficiencies are getting fixed, some aren't and probably never will be - to me it's all a part of where I opt to reside. What I don't wish to see is some of the inner city character being destroyed to bring new developments and along with it, more pedestrian friendly environments - I like Inglewood and Sunnyside the way they are. Unfortunately, Sunnyside in it's current quaint state is going to disappear - St. Johns, the Lido and others developments will see to that. 10th Street NW is going to become a much more suburban feeling environment and a much more pedestrian friendly area as a result, but the quirkiness that was will be gone and that I will miss.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Would you accept 25% lane width on a road? Similar situation here not only is it narrow but you have to go around a pole. Also should we put a pole part way into a lane so only motorcycles can get by safely?

As to going to the other side, are you ok with driving 2x as far or taking 4x as long to get to your destination? This isn't a temporary thing at minimum the pole should have been moved back from the road and the sidewalk been kept straight.

Oh and also the only reason the sidewalk is narrow is to allow for street parking next to a gigantic parking lot.

As far as narrower lanes, then why aren't people all up in arms overt he generally narrower lanes one finds on downtown streets as compared to something like 16th Avenue at Centre Street

2x as far or 4x as long to get to your destination by using the south sidewalk? Let's sensationalize this just a wee bit, eh. An extra 25 meters (if it's that) isn't going to make that huge difference you're alluding to.

As far as the sidewalk being narrow to provide parking, that north sidewalk seems to follow along in a similar alignment until it get's to the nearest newer development at 3rd Street where the sidewalk is all of sudden set back and is wider.

There's more at play here and I would suspect when that parking lot on the north side gets redeveloped, then that north sidewalk will be much more accommodating. Man, I could find things to nitpick about all over the inner-city or downtown but usually there's an alternative available within a very reasonable distance that won't drastically affect my time.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

Take away the lay-by that someone suggested and then you'll have people crabbing about parking being taken away.

And what of the sidewalk on the west side of 2nd Street SW here - is it wider? It certainly appears so on Google Street View - one could opt to cross over to the west side sidewalk.

Yes, I fully realize that there are many sub-standard facilities in the inner-city when it comes to pedestrian safety but one can find alternatives that are safe. It's sort like that guy who lives in Hillhurst who recently complained about the route his daughter has to take to get to her optional out-of-district school - his Twitter tale conveniently didn't include some very pedestrian friendly choices that were easily available plus very little mention was made of the fact that it was his family's choices that resulted in some negative pedestrian/commuting choices being introduced into their family's travels.

Of note, I live in an almost inner-city community and regularly travel into inner-city communities whether it be via an automobile, bicycle or walking and am well aware of infrastructure deficiencies when compared to suburbia. Some of these deficiencies are getting fixed, some aren't and probably never will be - to me it's all a part of where I opt to reside. What I don't wish to see is some of the inner city character being destroyed to bring new developments and along with it, more pedestrian friendly environments - I like Inglewood and Sunnyside the way they are. Unfortunately, Sunnyside in it's current quaint state is going to disappear - St. Johns, the Lido and others developments will see to that. 10th Street NW is going to become a much more suburban feeling environment and a much more pedestrian friendly area as a result, but the quirkiness that was will be gone and that I will miss.

2nd could be solved without the removal of parking, the travel lane is quite a bit wider than it needs to be, narrow the travel lane and move the parking out and you end up with lots of space to widen the sidewalk. Additionally if the bike facility was shifted inside the parked cars you could create a better biking facility and wider sidewalk all at the same time with minimal cost (some paint or markers).

May roadways in the inner-city are dramatically wider than they actually need to be for the traffic that is on them, in many cases going to a narrower lane (3.0m vs 3.3-3.5m) instantly creates space for increased sidewalk width or bike facilities and also has the side benefit of slowing traffic.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

As far as narrower lanes, then why aren't people all up in arms overt he generally narrower lanes one finds on downtown streets as compared to something like 16th Avenue at Centre Street

2x as far or 4x as long to get to your destination by using the south sidewalk? Let's sensationalize this just a wee bit, eh. An extra 25 meters (if it's that) isn't going to make that huge difference you're alluding to.

As far as the sidewalk being narrow to provide parking, that north sidewalk seems to follow along in a similar alignment until it get's to the nearest newer development at 3rd Street where the sidewalk is all of sudden set back and is wider.

There's more at play here and I would suspect when that parking lot on the north side gets redeveloped, then that north sidewalk will be much more accommodating. Man, I could find things to nitpick about all over the inner-city or downtown but usually there's an alternative available within a very reasonable distance that won't drastically affect my time.

So here's a question, if a disabled person was to park here [streetview] how are they to get to a destination? Sure some day the parking lot will be developed but why do we have to wait till then? Just so we can have an oversized cul-de-sac?

16th is a road that is in desperate need of narrowing, despite it being signed at 50 the speeds are regularly 60-70.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

2nd could be solved without the removal of parking, the travel lane is quite a bit wider than it needs to be, narrow the travel lane and move the parking out and you end up with lots of space to widen the sidewalk. Additionally if the bike facility was shifted inside the parked cars you could create a better biking facility and wider sidewalk all at the same time with minimal cost (some paint or markers).

May roadways in the inner-city are dramatically wider than they actually need to be for the traffic that is on them, in many cases going to a narrower lane (3.0m vs 3.3-3.5m) instantly creates space for increased sidewalk width or bike facilities and also has the side benefit of slowing traffic.

On the part that you didn't respond to - do you like the quirky Sunnyside/10th Street environment that was there some 2-3 years ago (before St. Johns) or will the upcoming urban canyon be more to your liking? I suppose if one could build new buildings that kept some of the quirkiness, but the Lido, St. Johns and other proposed or upcoming developments on 10th Street won't be doing this. Something like Oolong with it's rear patio or the Oak Tree Tavern with it's oddball patio won't ever be recreated in these new structures - then again, maybe the general populace just doesn't care Calgary doesn't have these little eccentric places. Can places like this exist in the urban environment that so many wish to see developed in Calgary?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

2nd could be solved without the removal of parking, the travel lane is quite a bit wider than it needs to be, narrow the travel lane and move the parking out and you end up with lots of space to widen the sidewalk. Additionally if the bike facility was shifted inside the parked cars you could create a better biking facility and wider sidewalk all at the same time with minimal cost (some paint or markers).

May roadways in the inner-city are dramatically wider than they actually need to be for the traffic that is on them, in many cases going to a narrower lane (3.0m vs 3.3-3.5m) instantly creates space for increased sidewalk width or bike facilities and also has the side benefit of slowing traffic.

Exactly. This is what bothers me. There is nothing in the ROW of 2nd Street that requires anyone to give anything up. It is already a well-used cycling route, with more than enough space for 2 lanes of parking, 2 bike lanes and 2 travel lanes.

Remember: This is the amount that is available now. Only instead of a ~5-6m travel lane + unmarked bicycle space you could give 3m travel lane, 1.5m bike lane and give the sidewalk another 1.5-2m with no issues that affect parking.

Instead we have a 1m or less sidewalk with a streetlight in the middle of it just to ensure anyone with disabilities cannot pass.

It is almost as if the existing design assumes more space for travel lanes is always better, even if you don't need it and the maximum amount of extra space you can actually give to travel lanes is less than enough to make an additional lanes so we will just have super-wide ones that don't do anything except waste the space that should be given to pedestrians on this quiet street.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So here's a question, if a disabled person was to park here [streetview] how are they to get to a destination? Sure some day the parking lot will be developed but why do we have to wait till then? Just so we can have an oversized cul-de-sac?

16th is a road that is in desperate need of narrowing, despite it being signed at 50 the speeds are regularly 60-70.

Certainly if I was taking my disable mother-in-law down there, I would find parking that would accommodate us - yeah, I will agree that that north sidewalk isn't accommodating but at he same time there are many alternatives available.

As far as the wait you're referring to, it's probably a case of spending tax dollars in a wise manner and especially so when that abutting parcel of land will most likely get redeveloped before too long.

Hell, go back 15-20 years ago and think of the situation that would've presented itself in this area and I think we're way ahead. Could it be better - sure it could but there is always a balance that has to be struck between budgets, what is built and what might be coming and that is probably the case here.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Exactly. This is what bothers me. There is nothing in the ROW of 2nd Street that requires anyone to give anything up. It is already a well-used cycling route, with more than enough space for 2 lanes of parking, 2 bike lanes and 2 travel lanes.

Remember: This is the amount that is available now. Only instead of a ~5-6m travel lane + unmarked bicycle space you could give 3m travel lane, 1.5m bike lane and give the sidewalk another 1.5-2m with no issues that affect parking.

Instead we have a 1m or less sidewalk with a streetlight in the middle of it just to ensure anyone with disabilities cannot pass.

It is almost as if the existing design assumes more space for travel lanes is always better, even if you don't need it and the maximum amount of extra space you can actually give to travel lanes is less than enough to make an additional lanes so we will just have super-wide ones that don't do anything except waste the space that should be given to pedestrians on this quiet street.

The existing design on the east side probably dates to the 50's while the west side is much newer and more accommodating. It's difficult to say why the east side hasn't been updated - probably because there's been no recent redevelopment of that building. Certainly an e-mail to the local councilor could get some answers if one wants answers - certainly better than complaining about it on a forum.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by speedog

The existing design on the east side probably dates to the 50's while the west side is much newer and more accommodating. It's difficult to say why the east side hasn't been updated - probably because there's been no recent redevelopment of that building. Certainly an e-mail to the local councilor could get some answers if one wants answers - certainly better than complaining about it on a forum.

On the contrary I would think this forum is a perfect place to voice concerns. There are many people on here that are influential in the outcome of the pedestrian strategy and this site is frequented by many looking for a change to such policies. Letters to the councillors don't hurt, but 10 letters are better than one.

That is also the stated goal of this sub-forum to provide some examples so I feel more than comfortable continuing to complain about poor, unsafe and inequitable design despite your objections.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by MasterG

On the contrary I would think this forum is a perfect place to voice concerns. There are many people on here that are influential in the outcome of the pedestrian strategy and this site is frequented by many looking for a change to such policies. Letters to the councillors don't hurt, but 10 letters are better than one.

That is also the stated goal of this sub-forum to provide some examples so I feel more than comfortable continuing to complain about poor, unsafe and inequitable design despite your objections.

Probably the best place is the local community meeting as those CA boards should have a great line of communication set up with their councilor - I know our CA board has great interaction with our area councilor and our councilor or their rep is always at our CA's monthly meetings. Certainly, our CA had gotten things done because of this interaction.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by speedog

Take away the lay-by that someone suggested and then you'll have people crabbing about parking being taken away.

Too fucking bad! enough of this city is dedicated to cars already.

[MarkL]

Originally Posted by speedog

Probably the best place is the local community meeting as those CA boards should have a great line of communication set up with their councilor - I know our CA board has great interaction with our area councilor and our councilor or their rep is always at our CA's monthly meetings. Certainly, our CA had gotten things done because of this interaction.

Some do, some don't. Some have an antagonistic relationship.

[MarkL]

I guess this is the thread to ask. Can we please stop allowing developers to destroy well poured quality concrete sidewalks and then "repair" then by badly pouring asphalt over top? If you destroy a concrete sidewalk you should have to replace it to the same standard. It's especially annoying since it seems a lot of the damage could be avoided with a little less contractor laziness.

[Spring2008]

I'm not sure I agree with the part in bold at all. You're saying The Kensington, Lido, Pixel, St. John's etc are going to bring a much more suburban feeling? Isn't that sentence a paradox?

Originally Posted by speedog

I like Inglewood and Sunnyside the way they are. Unfortunately, Sunnyside in it's current quaint state is going to disappear - St. Johns, the Lido and others developments will see to that. 10th Street NW is going to become a much more suburban feeling environment and a much more pedestrian friendly area as a result, but the quirkiness that was will be gone and that I will miss.