News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Which option A or C do you think would be approved? A = $170 million for district routes and C = $130 mil in near term and high priority areas. Ideally, both would proceed, but I don't see there being an appetite for that.

Personally, I think option C presents slightly better bang for the buck and a good politician could sell it "hey, I saved us $40 mil"
 
Which option A or C do you think would be approved? A = $170 million for district routes and C = $130 mil in near term and high priority areas. Ideally, both would proceed, but I don't see there being an appetite for that.

Personally, I think option C presents slightly better bang for the buck and a good politician could sell it "hey, I saved us $40 mil"

I think both. In options A and C there is a lot of overlap city admin said so they stressed not to add the two cost projections together.

I think it will go ahead, these council members are proponents of going big now:

Knack - yes
Janz -yes
Stevenson - yes
Salvador - yes
Paquette - yes
Tang - yes
Wright- yes
That's 7 of 13 there.

And Sohi and maybe others.
 
I didn't see many people riding bikes in Toronto. I was hoping there would be 5x more traffic on major routes compared to Edmonton given the population difference, I found it to be about the same.
 
I didn't see many people riding bikes in Toronto. I was hoping there would be 5x more traffic on major routes compared to Edmonton given the population difference, I found it to be about the same.
Where were you in Toronto? I was just in Toronto and the areas around the core were packed with cyclists most times of the day. Tons of delivery drivers on e-bikes as well as many people on rental bikes and regular bikes on regular car lanes and bike lanes. If anything I thought they needed more and wider bike lanes! Maybe the amount of cyclists were not 5x more but Toronto atleast has 2x to 3x more than Edmonton. It seems dangerous cycling there at certain places as car drivers seem more aggressive and a lot of cyclists swerve from lane to lane without helmets lol. That bike lane by harbourfront always has constant flow of cyclists when I try to cross the street.

Car centric suburbs such as Scarborough, Richmond Hill, Markham etc barely have any cyclists just like Edmonton which I understand.
 
Great to hear there is support for accelerating the plan. However, I was really hoping for a shared use path along either Stony Plain rd or 100ave to Winterburn rd. There are quite a few cyclists along this corridor and the access it would provide for alternative modes of transportation to/from the west would be a gamechanger.
Currently the city is only focusing on areas inside of the henday. My hunch is that will be a trend the next few decades, outside of new developments. If you want great bike infrastructure, core areas should have it soon!
 
I walked around Toronto's downtown area, up and down Yonge Street to North York etc. E-bike delivery businesses was the only thing that really stood out. Edmonton doesn't have any, everything else was the same. I didn't check out the parks and bike path system, just the urban realm so that might be where all the activity is.
 
I walked around Toronto's downtown area, up and down Yonge Street to North York etc. E-bike delivery businesses was the only thing that really stood out. Edmonton doesn't have any, everything else was the same. I didn't check out the parks and bike path system, just the urban realm so that might be where all the activity is.
I imagine using bikes for deliveries here will take off just as soon as there's some more general comfort with biking in winter. But when most peoples kneejerk reaction is "you can't bike in winter here!!" then the idea of using a bike for deliveries seems nonsensical. We'll get there!
 
Great video by Not Just Bikes. And classic Rob Ford clip - who didn't like the idea of bike lanes when he was mayor of Toronto and then specifically says it's bicyclists fault when they get killed on streets - as they are only for cars, busses and trucks.

 
Last edited:
So a small collection of rental bike out by the convention centre tonight. About 5 pm.
PXL_20221004_225747902.jpg
 
Update: The Wedgewood Ravine trail looks to be completed! There's new landscaping, benches, garbage bins and fencing. The re-paved trail now has a dedicated bike lane on one side, and a pedestrian lane on the other. This will make the path safer for everyone, as there used to be a risk of someone being in the way and getting hit due to the curves and blind corners if there were any bikes coasting at high speeds down the hill. There is also a nice little viewing point at the bottom of the ravine on both sides.


View attachment 427170View attachment 427171View attachment 427172View attachment 427173View attachment 427174View attachment 427175View attachment 427176View attachment 427177View attachment 427178View attachment 427179View attachment 427180

Small update from the Wedgewood Ravine trail: Symbols were being installed today on the pathway to ensure everyone knows where they should be!

1.jpg
 
Small update from the Wedgewood Ravine trail: Symbols were being installed today on the pathway to ensure everyone knows where they should be!

View attachment 430989
Why do we still do active pathways with these big bars? Isn't a bollard enough to stop a car from entering, if that's the concern? I don't get it.
You can give me all the paths in the world but if I have stop at the end and converge into a little narrow gap to get to the other side I still feel like a "second class citizen".
 
Aren't the bars set far enough apart for park maintenance to get through when they're open, but narrow enough to prevent vehicles from going through when they're closed? I suppose the other option would be to have a lockable bollard that could be laid flat for a service truck to access the trail.
 

Back
Top