[ChazYEG]

What's with your mad hate of turning lanes?

They're useless, a waste of space and left turns, especially on roads like Whyte, are unnecessarily dangerous (for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike) and disrupt the flow of traffic. They exist simply to appease the laziness of some drivers, who apparently would die if they had to circle a block (like 90% of the world's population does...).

They add absolutely no real benefit and bring a bunch of downsides.

 

[ChazYEG]

Even streets like Robson, Bloor and St. Denis have turning lanes during most of the year.

So what? Doesn't mean it's good or useful. For every road you mentioned I could list about a 100 major roads (mostly outside of North America) that don't.

Summer changes make sense, but Edmonton's climate, density and desire simply do not warrant much of this year-round.

Please explain how this makes any difference in this context....

 

[IanO]

Because Robson, Bloor and St. Denis are highly desirable urban streets and a potential model for Whyte.

Context in terms of cross-section.

 

[EdmTrekker]

Because Robson, Bloor and St. Denis are highly desirable urban streets and a potential model for Whyte.

Context in terms of cross-section.

None of which have angle parking which is a dumb idea and create real problems.
IMO:
(1) There should be no left turns in any direction between 100 Street and 106th street onto and off Whyte.
(2) No parking between 103-105th Street period except for accessible (handicap) registered vehicles on every other block but not between Street-105th Street on Whyte and
(3) the parking on the left side of 104th Street before and after Whyte should be designated only for accessible (handicap) registered vehicles.

 

[cent]

Although I think changes to whyte ave can only have lesser opposition from road users is if there was a parallel road that would support the east-west traffic south of the river (i.e. 72 ave over the CP tracks, as many have suggested). North Saskatchewan Dr cuts off at 99 st but if that can somehow be connected to Connors Rd then maybe

 

[Avenuer]

I still want to see my heavy rail Whyte Avenue Subway lol

 

[dkazzed]

Robson has only ever had turning lanes at the Art Gallery, and they closed the straight-through lanes ever since they closed Robson to vehicular traffic there. But Georgia two blocks north is the designated arterial.

The alternative to Whyte Ave is 97 Ave and 63 Ave which is a lot farther away, but Maps usually navigates me on one of those as the fastest route anyway unless my destination is on that stretch of Whyte Ave.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

I still want to see my heavy rail Whyte Avenue Subway lol

Well if it didn't cost so much a subway would be great.

Oh and angle parking on any major roadway is a complete recipe for disaster and headache.

 

[dkazzed]

What if we tunnel vehicular traffic under Gateway to 105 and keep BRT/LRT up at street level?

 

[archited]

BRT is a bust and not much favored in places where it exists -- from a Planning Standard it is "old hat".

 

[ChazYEG]

BRT is a bust and not much favored in places where it exists -- from a Planning Standard it is "old hat".

That's debatable... I've been to plenty of places where it's well regarded.

 

[archited]

Not so much -- except in third world countries where the choices are slimmer.

 

[dkazzed]

Vancouver has had great success with their B-Line buses that's since been rebranded Rapidbus, except the OG 99 B-Line which is going to be replaced anyway.

But I think Calgary's MAX would give us a better idea of what ridership will be like. If Whyte Ave is not going to get LRT for at least 20 years, and given the multiple levels of government may be a little tentative on approving new low floor light rail given the lower than expected ridership numbers on VLSE so far, BRT seems like a reasonable alternative at a fraction of the cost. Bonnie Doon to University is a highly used transit corridor competing for space on a highly congested street. Allowing Sherwood Park commuter buses to use the protected lanes could further reduce traffic congestion.

 

[erudyk_29]

BRT's are often deployed by cash strapped governments looking to improve their transit quickly and on a budget, sure rail transit is preferable but we shouldn't discount the validity and usefulness of a system just because it isn't necessarily the flashiest and most efficient possible mode. The City doesn't have unlimited funds either. This is a great semi-temporary solution as well. BRT can be converted to LRT down the line much more easily since you've already procured the ROW. Edmonton is a region of almost 1.5 million people that are very spread out, we can't serve everyone with LRT immediately. The rapid transit network needs to grow RAPIDLY, much more rapidly than it is right now and BRT provides a cheaper and faster way of getting that done. It's not perfect, and many of these lines will need to be replaced by LRT or Metro later down the line, but the system needs to grow now and grow quickly, BRT is the best way to do that.

 

[JuliallThat]

A BRT with high frequency and good reliability due to dedicated lanes and advance lights where necessary will make it's own case.
LRT is better of course, but for many the issues with busses come down more to unpredictability and unreliability that come with mixed traffic.