News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     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
 5.5K     0 

Does the city have any role in setting the boundary or is it completely within the purview of the individual rental companies?
 
The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) released data showing that between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, the number of hospitalizations for cycling injuries in Alberta jumped to 813 from 595, a 37 per cent increase over the previous year. During the same time period, the number of emergency-room visits for cycling injuries rose to nearly 13,000, up from 8,734.

A lot more bikes out there, even year round
More electric bikes with higher speeds
Still limited bike infrastructure, especially given the increase in Bike sales and ridership.

McGill University did a study on why people don't bike more.
Safety still #1 reason. This was followed by effort (too much work), and then parking.
Cities can do more regarding #1 and #3.

 
Last edited:
Maybe #2? Flattening hills to no more than 4% maybe 6% grades, about the same maximum grades as a train, or rerouting the main shared use paths so it say stays down in the river valley instead of for example routing up the Forest Heights Park or above Highlands golf course would do wonders to attract casual cyclists. The same improvements would also make routes more wheelchair accessible.

Also, having cycle routes off major road ways would not only increase safety, it would improve #2 for some cyclists as it goes from "I'm competing speed wise against cars and losing" to "this is a really love bike ride". There is a huge missing middle between the central core which is well serviced with off and on street bike paths and the suburbs which is reasonably well serviced with off street bike paths. The missing middle has a mostly grid based street system as well and it wouldn't be hard to implement traffic calmed on street bike paths aside from adding more crossings across the Whitemud and Yellowhead/CN Rail.
 
I do like the MUP following major routes and the LRT. Have been on a portion of the new Terwilliger one. and followed the LRT ones a few times. All quite nice to ride and you are far enough out of the traffic. We use the new Rabbit hill road to 170st one now when heading out of town to ride the country roads. We have also started using the Maskekoshk Trail in the west end to get to Winertburne Rd and the roads in the southwest out to Devon. Its better when there is only one lane of traffic and very little shoulder.
 
FZpW1jCVEAE4tDq


https://twitter.com/x/status/1556652102893522945
 
Gronk! said:
FZpW1jCVEAE4tDq


https://twitter.com/x/status/1556652102893522945
Click to expand...
I've been thinking lately that I'd love to see some sort of mandatory bicycle parking bylaws for large scale facilities (and events I suppose?)
I don't want it to be an excessive burden on small businesses, and I know the city will install sidewalk racks at request (though I wish they were a bit more pro-active about it) so i'm not really talking about that.
More like your Expo centres and your Wal-marts and Superstores and such.
You know that vibe when you come up to a huge facility and the only rack is 3 spots bolted to the ground way around in a dark corner where nothing is maintained or monitored? I don't like leaving my bike there.

I'd like some guarantee of;
Accessible location, minimum number of stalls, decent roof/weather protection, and guarantee of monitoring (for large facilities that already have a camera system, it's not a lot to ask to mandate a camera watching the racks).

Perhaps for stalls, some 1:1 or 2:1 factor of how large their permitted parking lot size is. Given that if they have no parking, then there's no mandated bike parking, but if they have 10 stalls, they must have 10 bike spots, if they have 100 stalls, they should have 100 bike spots.
For any number of bike spots over, let's say 10, they must have weather protection, just some sort of roof no more special than a buggy carousel.
They must be similar in accessibility as the handicapped parking stalls. Like if handicapped stalls are closest, bike racks are 2nd closest. That way they're not all shoved around the back by the loading bay.
 
I wa
JuliallThat said:
I've been thinking lately that I'd love to see some sort of mandatory bicycle parking bylaws for large scale facilities (and events I suppose?)
I don't want it to be an excessive burden on small businesses, and I know the city will install sidewalk racks at request (though I wish they were a bit more pro-active about it) so i'm not really talking about that.
More like your Expo centres and your Wal-marts and Superstores and such.
You know that vibe when you come up to a huge facility and the only rack is 3 spots bolted to the ground way around in a dark corner where nothing is maintained or monitored? I don't like leaving my bike there.

I'd like some guarantee of;
Accessible location, minimum number of stalls, decent roof/weather protection, and guarantee of monitoring (for large facilities that already have a camera system, it's not a lot to ask to mandate a camera watching the racks).

Perhaps for stalls, some 1:1 or 2:1 factor of how large their permitted parking lot size is. Given that if they have no parking, then there's no mandated bike parking, but if they have 10 stalls, they must have 10 bike spots, if they have 100 stalls, they should have 100 bike spots.
For any number of bike spots over, let's say 10, they must have weather protection, just some sort of roof no more special than a buggy carousel.
They must be similar in accessibility as the handicapped parking stalls. Like if handicapped stalls are closest, bike racks are 2nd closest. That way they're not all shoved around the back by the loading bay.
Click to expand...

I was at the Loblaw's City Market in Brewery District with my bike on the weekend and as I went to lock up I noticed 3 or 4 of the single bike racks that are bolted to the ground where each missing at least one bolt and so the racks were loose. And those are pretty visible.
 
dkazzed said:
Maybe #2? Flattening hills to no more than 4% maybe 6% grades, about the same maximum grades as a train, or rerouting the main shared use paths so it say stays down in the river valley instead of for example routing up the Forest Heights Park or above Highlands golf course would do wonders to attract casual cyclists. The same improvements would also make routes more wheelchair accessible.

Also, having cycle routes off major road ways would not only increase safety, it would improve #2 for some cyclists as it goes from "I'm competing speed wise against cars and losing" to "this is a really love bike ride". There is a huge missing middle between the central core which is well serviced with off and on street bike paths and the suburbs which is reasonably well serviced with off street bike paths. The missing middle has a mostly grid based street system as well and it wouldn't be hard to implement traffic calmed on street bike paths aside from adding more crossings across the Whitemud and Yellowhead/CN Rail.
Click to expand...
As someone who rides from south, the Whitemud and river/ravine valleys are definitely something you have to plan for crossing when heading into the city. When one crossing option is taken out (eg the pedestrian bridge near Royal Gardens when it was closed for a bit), it really throws off commute routes. The new bridge near Snow Valley will make a huge difference for those living in the Riverbend area, for sure. It also looks like the Whitemud upgrades will include a separate MUP bridge as well heading east, which is sorely needed as the existing path heading east is borderline unsafe. If you head down on the Brookside path there towards Fox Dr, there are some pretty serious climbs out of the valley too.

Same for crossing the Anthony Henday... it would be quite nice if the Capital Line LRT bridge going to Ellerslie included a MUP, but sadly I doubt it will happen. The missing MUP link to cross the ravine on Ellerslie Road near 141 St is also looong overdue. If you are uncomfortable riding in traffic, you are basically forced to 23 Ave, 41 Ave SW (then to 170 St), or the power lines trail to get to Riverbend/Terwillegar park from the Heritage Valley area.

Airboy said:
I do like the MUP following major routes and the LRT. Have been on a portion of the new Terwilliger one. and followed the LRT ones a few times. All quite nice to ride and you are far enough out of the traffic. We use the new Rabbit hill road to 170st one now when heading out of town to ride the country roads. We have also started using the Maskekoshk Trail in the west end to get to Winertburne Rd and the roads in the southwest out to Devon. Its better when there is only one lane of traffic and very little shoulder.
Click to expand...
Do you know if there is a MUP along the new alignment of Maskekosihk heading out west to Hwy 627? I don't/didn't mind riding it when it was the rural 23 Ave but with more houses popping up out there it would be nice to have a path to the city limits, at least. Haven't rode out west via that way for at least 1.5 years now.
 
20220807_100835.jpg
20220806_080143.jpg

The bike ride from Oliver to folk fest everyday was great, especially going down the big hill in riverdale. At night, the funicular was running past usual operating hours, with a city of Edmonton attendant on board. Felt safer, especially with all the folkers around. Also, riding along 102 Ave I noticed Cariwest was quite lively as well.
 
ntt1 said:
Do you know if there is a MUP along the new alignment of Maskekosihk heading out west to Hwy 627? I don't/didn't mind riding it when it was the rural 23 Ave but with more houses popping up out there it would be nice to have a path to the city limits, at least. Haven't rode out west via that way for at least 1.5 years now.
Click to expand...
The MUP is complete now. along the north side of the road
 
Wedgewood Ravine path repaving is pretty much done, except for a very small section of the entrances from Cameron Heights and Wedgewood. Great to have this connector back in service, and a fresh new path (that hill is a killer going towards Cameron).
!
tempImage0q2qe0.png
 
Hey everyone! There's some working being done right now on 95th ave on the West End as part of "renewal" for that road. It's meant to be a District Connector for Biking based on the Bike Plan, but they've currently proposed a MUP on 1 side of the road and intersections will likely stay dangerous with slip lanes, etc, similar to the ones that just resulted in the death of the man on 50st.

If you want to read more on the project, here's the city page: https://www.edmonton.ca/transportat...tween 163 Street,anticipated to begin in 2023.

If you want to read a blog I did with Paths for People arguing for a better design, here's that: https://pathsforpeople.org/2022/08/9-5-reasons-95ave/

Would anyone be interested in shooting an email to 95avenue@edmonton.ca to express support for bike infrastructure along this route?

The current project is from 189st to 163st, but it will eventually go from 163st to 142st as well and is a key project for the west end as our District Bike Connector. Would love your support!

You could also cc andrew.knack@edmonton.ca and sarah.hamilton@edmonton.ca if you'd like as they've both received lots of complaints from the anti-bike west end crew haha. Some supporters would be good to hear from! And maybe the biking club/group you're in might be interested too if you want to share with them!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top