News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

City council is discussing the bike plan implementation document right now. Livestream/recording link.

Some things of note (I'll be editing this as the session continues):
  • Ashley Salvador is supportive, asked if it's possible to accelerate the 10-15 year timeline. McCabe says that Council can choose to fund a more aggressive implementation with the next budget cycle.
  • Anne Stevenson is supportive, asked if developer contributions for new buildings in the Oliver area could be used for adding to the bike network. Oliver community league representative was receptive to this idea but admitted he wasn't familiar with the relevant bylaws.
  • Principe is not supportive, relays a message from her constituents: "Bike lanes are not a priority". She brings up 132 Ave as an example, asks if we can do shared use paths (SUPs) instead of a bike lane. Admin gives a non answer (understandbly).
  • Principe asks if administration is considered that adding bike lanes and lowering speeds on collectors will cause cut through traffic on neighborhood roads. McCabe says the city does traffic modelling.
  • Principe asks about who's responsible for bike parking. Admin says it will be a shared responsibility, some bike parking in zoning.
  • Paquette is supportive. He says SUPs aren't used only by bikes: seniors, strollers, scooters etc. He says trips taken have increased 30% year over year.
  • Admin says that bike implementation plan includes new strategies for measurement and data collection.
  • Knack is supportive, asks if it's possible to add a SUP along the entire length of the Valley Line West. Adam Laughlin says that it would be challenging due to space constraints. Knack asks if they could replace sidewalks, saying it would probably be more expensive to add in a brand new set of infrastructure rather than piggy backing on an existing project. Laughlin says that this would be really difficult at this point.
  • Janz is supportive, asks how the total $200M Bike Plan cost compares to total city spending on roadways. Admin says over last 2 budget cycles $2.4 billion was directly put into road infrastructure vs $19 million directly for bikes (but excludes things like neighbourhood renewal).
  • Janz asks how to integrate intermodal and end of trip facilities (combat theft).
  • Stevenson asks if bike lanes and high frequency transit on 97st is compatible. Admin says that the city considers this, weighs the feasiblity of the "desire path" vs offset paths.
  • Stevenson asks what would be required to keep the mobility lanes on Victoria park road. Admin says it plans to bring it back to the configuration from this last summer.
  • Rice asks how what the avg cost/km of bike lane vs roadway compares. Admin says it varies by type of pathway, but says they will follow up.
  • Rice says capital expenditure dollars should be balanced against % population usage.
  • Rice asks if it's possible to reflect on the bike plan given the impacts of Covid. Admin says covid has increased usage of act of transportation.
  • Admin says that the cost of building bike lane is proportional to it's footprint on the roadway.
SupportiveOpposed
  • Salvador
  • Stevenson
  • Knack
  • Janz (maybe needs his own category)
  • Principe
  • Rice
 
Last edited:
Holy cow, this deserves it's own post. Ashley Salvador put forward a motion for a bike plan implementation guide that completes the whole network by 2026!!!
1644961378749.png
 

Attachments

  • 1644961370004.png
    1644961370004.png
    289.1 KB · Views: 63
soupcrate said:
Holy cow, this deserves it's own post. Ashley Salvador put forward a motion for a bike plan implementation guide that completes the whole network by 2026!!!
View attachment 380378
Click to expand...
It passed unanimously, this is huge!! I am so glad that this council is proving to have some bite that goes along with its bark. For context, here is the definition for 'redeveloping areas' in the report: "Redeveloping areas, as outlined in The City Plan, generally describes the area bounded by Anthony Henday Drive"
 
Bike advocates from Paths for People (who have been meeting with every councillor) and Bike Edmonton really encouraged council to get bold and I'm so glad this council is looking to do that by accelerating the timeline.

A rep from Oliver community was also there outlining priorities for the area.

Screenshot_20220215-120639_YouTube.jpg
Screenshot_20220215-121013_YouTube.jpg

Screenshot_20220215-121103_YouTube.jpg
Screenshot_20220215-120948_YouTube.jpg
 
This is massive. So encouraged. I really hope this gets built in the next 6 years! It would be a game changer.

I’m fearful for the debate that will unfold though. I hope the advocacy groups and council are ready to go with talking points.

The SUP along the west valley LRT line would be amazing. Frustrated that wasn’t in the original design… doesn’t sound like they’ll add it in
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top