News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

And you think, @retiredfire and @barhonda that a single lane street with vehicles backed up to turn into parking would reduce your 15 minute wait -- I highly doubt it. If there is a problem -- localize it, don't spread it around. A single lane traffic solution is not a solution at all. And, yes, I have had two business locations -- both in Old Strathcona -- that had only alley access to parking and I too needed my car to travel to client meetings and to commute. There were occasional inconveniences but nothing that I would bother to write about.
 
^^^^ Here are some facts -- there will be no access to alley-ingress parking structures on the north side of 102nd Avenue -- so that is half of the path accounted for -- no cars will be crossing the LRT tracks except at certain intersections and there will be no left turns at those intersections from this single lane of east-bound (or west-bound if that happens to be the decision) traffic. We are now then talking only about parking on the south side of 102nd Avenue and access to those buildings. There are currently no parking structures affected at all on the south side between 97th Street and 103rd Street; the only "south-of" that are affected are then between 103rd and 108th street and only in a few instances. So you would blow up the whole notion of a pedestrian street that would far out-weigh any of your concerns simply because you need to access your car at busy times? These are the kinds of decisions that stand in the way of progress.
 

Edmonton city councillors push to pilot 102nd Avenue as pedestrian lane​

Bid to turn 102nd Avenue from 99th to 103rd streets into a walkway for 1 year needs council approval​



globalnews.ca

Should downtown Edmonton’s 102 Avenue be pedestrian only? - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca

For the last three-and-a-half years, 102 Avenue has been closed for Valley Line LRT construction. But now, as it's set to reopen, there could be last-minute changes.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
 
archited said:
^^^^ Here are some facts -- there will be no access to alley-ingress parking structures on the north side of 102nd Avenue -- so that is half of the path accounted for -- no cars will be crossing the LRT tracks except at certain intersections and there will be no left turns at those intersections from this single lane of east-bound (or west-bound if that happens to be the decision) traffic. We are now then talking only about parking on the south side of 102nd Avenue and access to those buildings. There are currently no parking structures affected at all on the south side between 97th Street and 103rd Street; the only "south-of" that are affected are then between 103rd and 108th street and only in a few instances. So you would blow up the whole notion of a pedestrian street that would far out-weigh any of your concerns simply because you need to access your car at busy times? These are the kinds of decisions that stand in the way of progress.
Click to expand...
Fact check: Canada Place has a parkade entrance and exit and the Citadel has a truck unloading bay just west of 97th street
1654046875859.png
 
IanO said:
Little known fact.

Canada Place has two separate parkades, owned/operated by two different parties and one with a sole access from 102.
Click to expand...
And the north side one (photo'd above) is already going to be on a "dead end" because 102 Ave would be eastbound only from 99 St and westward. Dead ends aren't a problem. People already find very creative ways to turn around and maybe we should have higher driver training standards
 
^On that note, transpo wants turnaround for all the dead ends along the Valley Line west. So if this were permanently closed I'm curious if they would require redesign of the road anywhere.
 
If 102 Avenue is closed to traffic, does the newly built infrastructure eventually need to be redesigned/rebuilt? The new EB vehicle lane is segregated from the sidewalk by the new cycle lane. How many pedestrians will actually use the vehicle lane in it's current configuration? It would have been better to have the cycle lane adjacent to the LRT tracks and have a widened south sidewalk with more trees/planters.

I'm all for pedestrianizing areas of our city, but this decision should have been made before we spent millions of dollars reconstructing the streetscape.
 
Last edited:
102 Ave from 99 St to 103 St has been closed since 2017, or nearly 5 years - that's plenty of time for traffic adjustments. Why not just keep that way, at least on a trial basis? Why is this being regarded as a sudden occurrence?

The only changes would be installing picnic tables at the ends of each street, which would be far preferable to all these ubiquitous construction fences, and disabling some traffic lights. The traffic lights can be removed if the trial run is a great success.
 
Gronk! said:
102 Ave from 99 St to 103 St has been closed since 2017, or nearly 5 years - that's plenty of time for traffic adjustments. Why not just keep that way, at least on a trial basis? Why is this being regarded as a sudden occurrence?
Click to expand...
There are a couple important caveats which I learned on my tour of the Valley Line a couple weeks ago, and posted somewhere on this forum (I think).

First, I asked the city planners/liaisons guiding our group, and they confirmed that accommodations were made throughout the project to allow for access to loading zones cor businesses, and parkade access during large events. So businesses actually haven't had to find alternatives for unloading supplies during these past few years (though perhaps they did for certain stretches; I did not follow up about that), and Canada Place's 102 Ave parkade was able to be relied on when needed.

Secondly, I can't recall if this was said during the tour or if I read it in an article more recently, but "permanent" infrastructure like seating won't be allowed on 102 Ave even if it does get closed to vehicles, because it will still need to be avalible for emergency vehicles to access/drive through.

But overall, I agree with you. It makes more sense to try this out now and get some valuable data and experience to work with in a year, rather than opening it back up and then revisiting this a few years down the road after drivers had time to cement their habits. Even if this ends up being a fail and only lasts a year, it's better than only having hypothetical "what ifs" to work with.

I don't think it'll be a big fail though. I mean sure, it used to be a busier road like the YMCA points out. But how much extra "eyes on the ground" would we really get from vehicles either trying to get through to a better road, or going to the parkades/loading docks? One of the city staffers on the tour joked that "If you find yourself driving here when it opens, odds are that's because you don't know the area well enough to avoid it." I'd rather have people there who really want to be there, who are really paying attention to their surroundings and soaking things in, and who are maybe even patronizing local businesses, instead of having people who are just frustrated with traffic and trying to get through as quickly as possible. The former group, I think, is more likely to provide actual passive surveillance than the latter group.
 
Last edited:
jimmilegs said:
If 102 Avenue is closed to traffic, does the newly built infrastructure eventually need to be redesigned/rebuilt? The new EB vehicle lane is segregated from the sidewalk by the new cycle lane. How many pedestrians will actually use the vehicle lane in it's current configuration? It would have been better to have the cycle lane adjacent to the LRT tracks and have a widened south sidewalk with more trees/planters.

I'm all for pedestrianizing areas of our city, but this decision should have been made before we spent millions of dollars reconstructing the streetscape.
Click to expand...
And to be clear, I am in favour of this proposal. I agree that traffic has become accustomed to the closure of 102 Ave and appears to be operating just fine. I support the idea of prioritizing pedestrians in the core of our city.

I just feel that the south half of the streetscape would have been designed differently if this idea was proposed 5 years ago. I wonder if the bicycle lane and the emergency access lane can be swapped at minimal cost - not sure if they are the same width.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top