[Kosy123]

I think there's a sort of hedonic treadmill thing going on here—once something good happens, you internalize it as part of your baseline and don't really register it as progress anymore.

I think it’s a function of being stuck in our own bubble of being the only major city for hours around, and an urbanism geek, advocate or supporter. Personally, I didn’t really appreciate our bike lane system, thinking it was this horrible trash system, until visiting other Canadian cities where I went “huh okay never mind”.

Isolation breeds tough love and criticism, and it really takes a change in scenery and perspective to appreciate how far we’ve progressed as a city.

 

[TAS]

Ontario court strikes down Ford government's plan to remove Toronto bike lanes​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ford-bike-lane-toronto-court-ruling-1.7597460

Will be interesting to hear what Dresheen has to say and whether he will continue his pursuit of removing the 4 bike lanes in Edmonton he has identified (two of them being 132 Ave in the north and 100Ave downtown). The 132 Ave removal would be expensive now.

Ontario is appealing court decision.

 

[mcr]

Will be interesting to hear what Dresheen has to say and whether he will continue his pursuit of removing the 4 bike lanes in Edmonton he has identified (two of them being 132 Ave in the north and 100Ave downtown). The 132 Ave removal would be expensive now.

Ontario is appealing court decision.

This government is the absolute worst. F*** them.

100 Ave and 132 Ave are not "major corridors" they are side streets. I could understand the annoyance people had if these lanes were on Jasper Ave, 137 Ave, those types, but they're put on adjacent side roads as NOT to disrupt the major thoroughfares. Just stay the hell out of municipal politics already.

 

[dkazzed]

Even the most cycling friendly cities in Canada face loud opposition against safe and continuous cycling infrastructure. Vancouver and Kelowna didn't turn me into a regular cyclist, Edmonton did.

My only gripe with Edmonton is that they still need to address the mid century middle, the donut of cycling hell. Fort Road is getting built and there's a bunch slated in around Jasper Place and Bonnie Doon/Forest Heights but there's still so much to go.

 

[ntt1]

Three areas where bridge infrastructure would benefit peds and cycos to tremendous advantage in Edmonton would be:

76 Ave over the railyard in the south (wishful thinking, I know) or University Ave near the Cross.

 

[trevorhayden]

AB government will keep trying because you know, Alberta is unique lol

 

[Offworld]

Watched that last night and he was a lot kinder on Edmonton than I might have expected.

I then had to remind myself that he's largely transport-oriented in his videos, and thus didn't get into a lot of the other ills Edmonton faces. Or, should I say, Edmonpeg.

 

[TAS]

Watched that last night and he was a lot kinder on Edmonton than I might have expected.

I then had to remind myself that he's largely transport-oriented in his videos, and thus didn't get into a lot of the other ills Edmonton faces. Or, should I say, Edmonpeg.

Or maybe he feels Edmonton stacks up fairly well to many of the other cities he's explored (many being in the US).

But generally his visits are also about exploring what's unique or different or special about a city so that's what he highlighted.

 

[archited]

A bridge over 109th Street along 102nd Avenue with the conversion of 102nd Avenue into a spine for LRT, hoofers, and sprocketeers -- it would be 666+ (Devil-got-my-tongue) feet in length making a 1:20 incline doable in clearing the 109th impasse. A 5% incline is easily negotiated by even over-aged, underdeveloped, sedentary whozits such as myself (TJ) and the bridge could be wide enough to segregate the slow-movers from the whiz-byers. This makes sense for the near-by NorQuesters most of whom -- as the 'O has noted -- would be car-less and yet downtown centric in their off-book hours. My expansive gut tells me that it would be a strong connector to the opposing sides of the 109th impediment.
Before:

and After:

The bridge would barely cause pedestrians a sweat (5% slope is only slightly more than drainage slopes on City sidewalks which are usually 2% to 3%) and would connect downtown proper with Wîhkwêntôwin in a major way, encouraging foot traffic and exploration. It would have vibes of NYC's HighLine with lots of socializing space along the way and quick-service food kiosks. I believe that it would be one more peg in the hole in service to the pedestrianization of downtown.

 

[thommyjo]

A bridge over 109th Street along 102nd Avenue with the conversion of 102nd Avenue into a spine for LRT, hoofers, and sprocketeers -- it would be 666+ (Devil-got-my-tongue) feet in length making a 1:20 incline doable in clearing the 109th impasse. A 5% incline is easily negotiated by even over-aged, underdeveloped, sedentary whozits such as myself (TJ) and the bridge could be wide enough to segregate the slow-movers from the whiz-byers. This makes sense for the near-by NorQuesters most of whom -- as the 'O has noted -- would be car-less and yet downtown centric in their off-book hours. My expansive gut tells me that it would be a strong connector to the opposing sides of the 109th impediment.
Before:
View attachment 670470
and After:

View attachment 670475
The bridge would barely cause pedestrians a sweat (5% slope is only slightly more than drainage slopes on City sidewalks which are usually 2% to 3%) and would connect downtown proper with Wîhkwêntôwin in a major way, encouraging foot traffic and exploration. It would have vibes of NYC's HighLine with lots of socializing space along the way and quick-service food kiosks. I believe that it would be one more peg in the hole in service to the pedestrianization of downtown.

What’s the render from the east side of 109st looking north though. Pedestrian overpasses can hurt the public realm more than they help sometimes.

 

[archited]

I am not sure what you mean exactly TJ -- do you mean what does it look like standing on the sidewalk on the east side of 109th Street some distance back from a pedestrian bridge or do you mean from a viewpoint near or under the (imaginary) bridge. Certainly one wouldn't want to build a bridge in isolation to the (macro) site. I'll take a whirl at it from a massing perspective and then you cab address what concerns are evident to you.

 

[ntt1]

Missing Sidewalk Program | City of Edmonton

Report a missing sidewalk in Edmonton using this form.

www.edmonton.ca

Construction on the 2025 Missing Sidewalk Program started in July 2025 and is anticipated to be completed in fall 2025.

• 100 Avenue: 170 Street to 178 Street
• 103 Avenue: Mayfield Rd to 170 Street
• 172 Street at 103 Avenue intersection
• 172 Street at 105 Avenue intersection
• 111 Street: Saddleback Road to 34 Avenue
• 111 Street: 37 Avenue to 43 Avenue
• 153 Avenue: 117 Street to 121 Street
• 167 Avenue: 91 Street to 95 Street

The 111 Street one completed last year was a shared-use path, so I suspect (hope) that the other portions this year will also be. The NW corner of the 34 Ave/111 St intersection is dug up now, not too sure why, but hopefully it's to correct the awkward angle from the new path completed last year between 34 and 37 Ave:

Just received confirmation from the project manager that the 111 Street Missing Sidewalk program portions (on the west side) to be constructed this year between Saddleback Road and 34 Ave, and 37 Ave to 43 Ave will all be 3m wide asphalt shared-use paths.

The existing concrete sidewalk portions between 40 Ave and 43 Ave and near the bus stop south of 34 Ave will all be removed and upgraded. Work on the section north of 37 Ave won't begin until September, and the current work on the corner is indeed to construct a proper intersection of the existing paths.

So, when this is all done, we'll have 3m wide SUPs on both sides of 111 Street except for in front of Harry Ainlay, and between Saddleback Road and 9 Ave (Twin Brooks) but more importantly, you won't be forced to cross the LRT tracks to go continuously north-south.

 

[archited]

OK, here is a r0ugh massing diagram of what I am proposing as a pedestrian/wheelie bridge across 109th Street.

I would look to steal a traffic lane from each direction on 109th street and expand the sidewalk accordingly. I would also look to have eateries under the bridge and, as on the surface of the bridge, I would see the street .lined with "planters and benches" (my favorite song) -- so the underside of the bridge would be particularly active (with some time I could generate a decent rendering). I would have to see one of the eateries named "Trolling for Lunch" (double entendre with a fish menu aligned with the Norse mythological creature). The other side would have Odin's Catch (playing off Norse mythology for the number Nine (as in 9th Street) and profound spiritual truths

 

[itom987]

View attachment 670580View attachment 670581
After taking a walk down 132 Ave. to see new street along with bike path and sidewalks. I conclude that the project was designed poorly. The combined width of sidewalk and bike path going down both sides of the street exceed the width of the street itself this doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it. Keeping the power lines was also a bad idea as well, and it was an even a worse idea to plant trees directly underneath the power lines! What were they thinking? I feel sorry for the residents that live along this street and can't imagine what it must be like to remove all the snow from the combined sidewalk and bike path which is as wide as a 2 lane driveway. I suppose the bike path or sidewalk will be ignored during winter. I understand that the lack of traffic on the street warranted a road diet but they could have done a better job at it. The roads themselves were not in bad shape, they should have up-zoned the properties along the entire road to medium density giving the road the traffic it was designed to handle. The power lines could have been brought underground as well.

 

[thommyjo]

Just received confirmation from the project manager that the 111 Street Missing Sidewalk program portions (on the west side) to be constructed this year between Saddleback Road and 34 Ave, and 37 Ave to 43 Ave will all be 3m wide asphalt shared-use paths.

The existing concrete sidewalk portions between 40 Ave and 43 Ave and near the bus stop south of 34 Ave will all be removed and upgraded. Work on the section north of 37 Ave won't begin until September, and the current work on the corner is indeed to construct a proper intersection of the existing paths.

So, when this is all done, we'll have 3m wide SUPs on both sides of 111 Street except for in front of Harry Ainlay, and between Saddleback Road and 9 Ave (Twin Brooks) but more importantly, you won't be forced to cross the LRT tracks to go continuously north-south.

Amazing. All arterials should be double MUPs. The one side being a sidewalk and alternating sides randomly thing is so pointless.