Airboy
Senior Member
Yes there is very little parking on the streets in the area other that the Prominade. I had to search quite a bit to park at a friends condo.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
I wonder if many of the condos in this area have visitor parking and if they are always full.
When I have people visit they always opt for street parking first rather than the visitor parking behind my building which is always available because street parking seems a bit more convenient or easier or faster.
When I have people visit they always opt for street parking first rather than the visitor parking behind my building which is always available because street parking seems a bit more convenient or easier or faster.
TAS
Senior Member
Just checked with my friend with a condo just off the promenade. Same thing. Nobody uses the parking behind his building - always street parking first. It's like "I had to use your visitor parking because the street parking is full."
Ok. Is the problem really not enough street parking?
I also know or see so many people who don't use their garages or back driveways and instead park on the street. In some residential areas you get cars parked on both sides of the street that only one car and barely one bike can get through. It's ridiculous.
I guess the answer is wider residential streets and more parking though.
Last edited:
ChazYEG
Senior Member
I would've gone more drastic and made it a shared street, focused mostly on local access and actual traffic completely diverted to 116 St (remove street parking there altogether, to improve traffic flow).
It would allow for lots of street parking, bike lanes both ways and a lot more space for pedestrians and cyclists. Not to mention that it would make the street quieter for residents, a lot less busy and much more visually appealing.
It would allow for lots of street parking, bike lanes both ways and a lot more space for pedestrians and cyclists. Not to mention that it would make the street quieter for residents, a lot less busy and much more visually appealing.
TAS
Senior Member
I don't think this point gets as much significance as it deserves when designing our public spaces. Traffic noise is a joy kill and a stressor. Or to put it a different way, quieter streets lead to a much more enjoyable public experience.
Has anyone walked across the High Level Bridge and had a conversation with someone at the same time? It can certainly be done, but it is not easy to hear or as pleasant an experience as it could be - versus walking across our new LRT bridge for example.
thommyjo
Senior Member
For anyone that doesn’t want separated bike lanes in both directions, just to confirm, you are comfortable with an 8 year old or an 80 year old using a bike or mobility scooter on a road that’s 40km/hr…?
Our bike plan is very clear. All ages and abilities. Option 2 is the only one meeting our MINIMUM guidelines.
And if we cared about connectivity, convenience, and quality, we would do a 2 way cycle track on the north side as a continuation from 110st to 121st (which also needs to get fixed from its bike gutter door zone horribleness). That enables extra space for passing or side by side riding if not busy.
We cannot build sub par bike infrastructure anymore. Sharrows are the equivalent of still building gravel roads. Doesn’t make sense anymore. We know how dangerous they are and that the only people using them bike on whatever roads they want already anyways. The purpose of bike lanes is for the non 20-40s risk taking male cyclist. Or 90+% of the population.
Our bike plan is very clear. All ages and abilities. Option 2 is the only one meeting our MINIMUM guidelines.
And if we cared about connectivity, convenience, and quality, we would do a 2 way cycle track on the north side as a continuation from 110st to 121st (which also needs to get fixed from its bike gutter door zone horribleness). That enables extra space for passing or side by side riding if not busy.
We cannot build sub par bike infrastructure anymore. Sharrows are the equivalent of still building gravel roads. Doesn’t make sense anymore. We know how dangerous they are and that the only people using them bike on whatever roads they want already anyways. The purpose of bike lanes is for the non 20-40s risk taking male cyclist. Or 90+% of the population.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
I'll up you one. We can get rid of the promenade, back to a narrow sidewalk, have parking on both sides or 3 lanes of traffic. After all, making Edmonton accessible, safe and pleasant for anyone who doesn't own (and doesn't want to, or can't) a car is absolutely unnecessary.
jason403
Active Member
I love the promenade. Used it a lot to both go for walks, cycle along it, and use a scooter when I lived in Oliver. It is absolutely fantastic, especially after the coffee food truck started setting up at LaMarchand Mansion on weekends. I just believe that it is largely fine as is. The street parking is great for when I go back to visit now, and residents of the neighborhood also appreciate having it around. There is not congestion on the low speed road, and really allows for the maximum amount of people to use the space. If bike lanes didn't take away from street use for cars or parking, then sure, throw it in. There isn't enough space to have it all, hence a choice having to be made. It's just a little sad that roads and parking that people actually use, are being taken away for bike lanes that aren't needed.
And any time someone uses the argument having to point out a an 8 year old and an 80 year old, they have a pretty weak argument. There already is a bike lane on 102 Ave, so I think people should be fine. If not, maybe they should look at some alternative forms of transportation.
And any time someone uses the argument having to point out a an 8 year old and an 80 year old, they have a pretty weak argument. There already is a bike lane on 102 Ave, so I think people should be fine. If not, maybe they should look at some alternative forms of transportation.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
I would like to know who said that the bike lanes aren't needed, for a start. One of the reasons our bike network is underused is that we have patches of lanes, but no real integrated network that allows for bikes to be a reasonable mode of transportation on a daily basis.
Also, this section of 100 street DOES NOT need to add any car traffic flow. I live here, have been for a few years, and I will bet you that the large majority of residents of the immediate surroundings would actually appreciate if it had a lower speed limit, shorter crossing distance and less vehicular traffic.
Last, but no least, why is this a weak argument? Might I add that the Promenade is also an area for leisure, exercising and relaxing. Should be a place that feels safe for families with young children, elderly, etc... Not giving a s**t for this kind of thing is, certainly, among the top reasons why lots of families would never choose to live downtown in Edmonton, even if all other issues were solved.
Your view on this is essentially that of a suburbanite who occasionally visits downtown and cares very little for the quality of life of those who have chosen a lifestyle that is more urban.
cloney
New Member
sorry, how does a bike lane on a road several blocks away make it any more accessible to bike on this road? and people should look at alternative forms of transportation? in a city and time where the vast majority of transportation is by car, biking is the alternative form already? You can drive a car to access 99% of places in the city already, but reducing vehicle traffic and/or on street parking one road that isnt a major thoroughfare, isnt fair to car drivers? And how does having cars and on street parking, which are the least efficient forms of road use, "allows for the maximum amount of people to use the space" ? You are literally saying that having the least efficient forms of road use and transportation, allows for the maximum amount of people to use the space. Not to be rude, but largely everything you are saying is factually incorrect.
cloney
New Member
"there isnt much traffic here, so we should alter the road in a way that will result in more traffic on the road" Im struggling to understand your logic in any of your comments. Are you saying that there isnt much bike traffic, so it should be replaced with car lanes? or there isnt much vehicle traffic here, so we should add more lanes to get more traffic?
thommyjo
Senior Member
So to clarify my weak argument for you, it’s based on a global movement that has recognized we must stop building cities for only 20-50 year old men with able bodies, but that compassionate, inclusive, human cities need to think of all sorts of residents.
The 8 80 principle is simply a catchy framework. If an 8 year old and an 80 year old are both comfortable, than it’s likely inclusive for 98% of people.
Your arguement of feeling fine biking on it is great, but it doesn’t speak for much of the population.
What your very clearly outlining is that children and the elderly are not WORTH the investment. They don’t DESERVE the same enjoyment and safety that you do. That it’s their FAULT if they can’t drive or move safely through the city.
I believe this is fundamentally wrong and dehumanizing. My kids and my grandparents are just as important as you. Their right to safety is actually more important than ours as well because they are vulnerable people. So we must think of them first.
And again, the trade off is what? 12 parking stalls and some speed? It blows my mind what we are willing to do for parking.
8 80 Cities | Creating cities for all
We're a non-profit organization bringing citizens together to enhance mobility & public spaces so we can create vibrant, healthy, & equitable communities.
www.880cities.org
jason403
Active Member
Thanks for the information, and like I previously have stated, I support bike lanes. I don't, however, support them in every location. In the end, this location is likely to get one of 3 options to support better bike lane infrastructure here. Some of you people really need to chill. Parking and roads are great to have in some locations, bike lanes as well. It isn't efficient to have 100% of anything.
TAS
Senior Member
Who is talking about every location? Certainly not active transportation advocates or city planners or politicians.. What is being proposed is so far from that notion.
Again for the record, the city is proposing to add 480km of bike/multi-use protected lanes among the 11,000+km of roadway in the city.
There is 10,520+km of roadway that will have no protected bike lanes on them.
Last edited:
thommyjo
Senior Member
You can’t say you support bike lanes when you’ve said everything your last 5 posts have said. Those are the perfect examples of non support.
“Just ride in traffic”
“There’s already another one 3 blocks north”
“Kids and seniors don’t need bike lanes”
“Don’t take away parking”