Aaron_Lloyd
Active Member
Especially when Paths for People predicted exactly this issue if I recall. Putting down some green stripping in the bike lane might at least fix this in the summer months?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
More love for Edmonton - our $100 million investment in bike lanes has sure garnered a lot of international attention and some great images of the city such as the posting below from two urbanist authors from The Netherlands. Kudos to Coun. Janz who has been bringing various speakers to Edmonton and highlighting our city.
I wonder how much attention and images of the city our $180 million for one overpass (50th St) will generate by comparison.
I wonder how much attention and images of the city our $180 million for one overpass (50th St) will generate by comparison.
Last edited:
TAS
Senior Member
And more.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Loved Chris’ books.
Went to the seminar last night and it was ok. But was just a watered down summary of his book in a pretty dull environment. Feel like we could make an event like that a lot more engaging and exciting if we’re going to have such a big name person in town. Stoked he came though and cool he’s sharing online.
Went to the seminar last night and it was ok. But was just a watered down summary of his book in a pretty dull environment. Feel like we could make an event like that a lot more engaging and exciting if we’re going to have such a big name person in town. Stoked he came though and cool he’s sharing online.
TAS
Senior Member
erudyk_29
Active Member
Slightly off topic but I am genuinely asking a question as a student in Planning at the U of A. A discussion recently came up during lecture about Edmonton's placement of bike lanes and how many cities opt to place them on main roads, whereas Edmonton has opted to place this infrastructure on parallel streets, like 102nd Ave instead of Jasper and 83rd Ave instead of Whyte. Some thought it was a poor choice because it meant that the bike lane was not directly exposed to the street level businesses located on those streets. While others thought that placing them on side streets was better as it is safer for cyclists to be on calm and quiet side streets. I'm sure the primary rationale of building the bike infrastructure off the main roads was primarily to not draw the ire of drivers, but I think there is something to be said for increasing cyclist safety and I think it has led to businesses opening their shops around the 83rd ave-Gateway Boulevard area oriented towards the cyclists.
So genuine question:
What would better for the future of cycling in Edmonton (and other cities as well):
Parallel to main roads, on quiet side streets
or
On the main road
So genuine question:
What would better for the future of cycling in Edmonton (and other cities as well):
Parallel to main roads, on quiet side streets
or
On the main road
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Both. At least in some roads.
I would love to have bike infrastructure on Whyte and Jasper, particularly, as part of a wider road diet, and I believe that, especially in the case of Jasper Ave, which is currently very run down and could use a spark to reignite retail, it could make a huge impact.
I also think it could bear fruits to roads like 112 ave in the Highlands, for example.
But on the larger scheme of widespread bike infrastructure, that's focused on longer commutes, for example, I think that MUPs and parallel roads is the way to go. It's safer, generally faster, and could have unintended benefits (like bringing businesses to some of these streets).
thommyjo
Senior Member
Advantage of side roads imo:
- can be quieter and less pollution
- ideally should be faster as you make it more of a freeway with less intersection stops/lights vs Main Street grids
- less controversial as you build critical mass of bikers
- still safer
-likely cheaper to design intersections, as at least in Edmonton, most commercial streets like whyte/jasper/104ave/109st are pretty wide (3-5 lanes) and complex vs 110st, 102ave, 83ave are primarily 1-2 lanes each direction.
Disadvantages:
- “last block” issues of getting to destinations. Do you ride on the sidewalk? Forced to walk with bike?
-bike parking can be unclear vs seeing it along a route as you bike. Sometimes I’ve hopped off 102ave for example and gone to jasper and then realized there wasn’t a good place to lock up where I was heading.
- you don’t see businesses, and they don’t get your eyes/advertisement. Vehicles per day is still a key selling featuring for commercial leasing. Bikes per day could matter too if they were on streets that businesses front
- don’t get the traffic calming or space separation of bike lanes on some commercials roads, like whyte, you can imagine how much better a patio is if there’s 10-15ft of separation from cars thanks to sidewalk, bike lanes, landscapes boulevard with trees/flowers/bushes.
-less visibility to drivers than bikes exist. They think no one bikes because we hide all the bikers on quiet residential areas and side streets. Vs seeing 5-10 bikes at intersections along jasper in the morning would show drivers that people are out biking more.
- can be quieter and less pollution
- ideally should be faster as you make it more of a freeway with less intersection stops/lights vs Main Street grids
- less controversial as you build critical mass of bikers
- still safer
-likely cheaper to design intersections, as at least in Edmonton, most commercial streets like whyte/jasper/104ave/109st are pretty wide (3-5 lanes) and complex vs 110st, 102ave, 83ave are primarily 1-2 lanes each direction.
Disadvantages:
- “last block” issues of getting to destinations. Do you ride on the sidewalk? Forced to walk with bike?
-bike parking can be unclear vs seeing it along a route as you bike. Sometimes I’ve hopped off 102ave for example and gone to jasper and then realized there wasn’t a good place to lock up where I was heading.
- you don’t see businesses, and they don’t get your eyes/advertisement. Vehicles per day is still a key selling featuring for commercial leasing. Bikes per day could matter too if they were on streets that businesses front
- don’t get the traffic calming or space separation of bike lanes on some commercials roads, like whyte, you can imagine how much better a patio is if there’s 10-15ft of separation from cars thanks to sidewalk, bike lanes, landscapes boulevard with trees/flowers/bushes.
-less visibility to drivers than bikes exist. They think no one bikes because we hide all the bikers on quiet residential areas and side streets. Vs seeing 5-10 bikes at intersections along jasper in the morning would show drivers that people are out biking more.
Avenuer
Senior Member
Melissa was here as well back in 2018 for a talk, a year after the Downtown cycling grid was installed:
JuliallThat
Active Member
Parallel bike roads work good for commuters, when there isn't a lot of space on the main road, and essentially no reason to want to visit the main road, if it's just an arterial with no businesses or frontages.
But the fault here is the expectation that only A to B commuters are using bike lanes, and it makes it harder to do the shopping you may want to do enroute or to run errands on a bicycle, or other mobility vehicle too. This is especially true on roads with narrow sidewalks and society's disdain every bicycle who dares to ride on the sidewalk.
Frankly though there's a limited amount of space on many of the main corridors, especially narrower ROW's in the core. IMO what we should be thinking about is how do we ensure that our narrow commercial streets aren't entirely monopolized by car traffic, so that we do have room for bikes and pedestrians. To be clear I'm not saying they have to be pedestrian-only, just maybe it makes sense to set up a dedicated vehicle commuter corridor on a parallel route so that we can make room for other users on that commercial corridor.
Avenuer
Senior Member
The main reason why the city follows the ‘side road’ principal is due to a report from Stantec years ago that recommended that approach versus locating them on Main Streets. I’ve seen that report but unsure whether it’s accessible on the COE website.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Knack is also a big proponent and cites safety and comfort. But I think that’s more a reflection of horrible main streets like jasper and Whyte, and not of necessarily side streets being better.
And what does it say about the pedestrian experience if the noise, pollution, safety, and comfort of main streets isn’t ideal for biking?
trevorhayden
Active Member
Just looking at the improvements being built for part of 95 Avenue (west), and how, except for 1 measly asphalt shared path, the rest is an absolute failure. That street is way overbuilt. There will be no reduction in car lanes, no reduction in turning lanes, no reduction in service roads. Even the trees in the medians will be removed for the safe zone. Looks like some engineer got his sticky paws on it and designed it based on a car algorithm. Come on, it's 2023! Edmonton has shown it can do better than that!
thommyjo
Senior Member
Are these the new plans or the old plans?
The released plans earlier this year and I actually reached out to the planner and knack/Hamilton to express how disappointing it was and to point out that it didn’t align with multiple parts of our bike plan, complete streets plan, vision zero, etc.
Apparently they did it all to compromise with all the homeowners complaining. But funny enough, those homeowners still weren’t happy And threatened to sue. So I was told they were going back to the drawing board as a bit of an f u to the residents. They tried to compromise, but if they want to threaten legal action anyways, might as well go all the way.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if the new design was still lacklustre…
I told them that 132nd ave should be the template and the disparity between them both was confusing and illogical. Let’s give the less busy, quieter road the safer bike infrastructure. And the much busier road that connects to the Oliver and downtown grid, multiple major high schools, west Ed, misecordia, a WVLRT stop. Like what. Fricken build something good please CoE. 95ave is a DISTRICT CONNECTOR in the bike plan. A MUP with no intersection changes is stupid.
northlands
Senior Member
Seriously? Threatening legal action over a street renewal to put in a bike lane?
Is someone able to link to the prior plans?
Is someone able to link to the prior plans?