ntt1
Active Member
It's an old rural road right of way (used to be 184 St) -- fairly certain that they could still use it for emergency vehicle access if needed (as Cameron Heights is only accessible via Henday).
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
I'm not aware of this group but sounds like they do fairly extensive analysis of bike infrastructure in North American cities.
According to this, Edmonton ranked 7th best out of 85 large cities in North American (300k+)
cityratings.peopleforbikes.org
According to this, Edmonton ranked 7th best out of 85 large cities in North American (300k+)
Edmonton Alberta City Rating Page | PeopleForBikes 2024 City Ratings
Edmonton Alberta Score: (61 out of 100) | City Rank (179 out of 2579 cities). Follow the link to see even more data about this city!
cityratings.peopleforbikes.org
I'm extremely curious about the methodology for this. What does a 78/100 ridership score mean?I'm not aware of this group but sounds like they do fairly extensive analysis of bike infrastructure in North American cities.
According to this, Edmonton ranked 7th best out of 85 large cities in North American (300k+)
Edmonton Alberta City Rating Page | PeopleForBikes 2024 City Ratings
Edmonton Alberta Score: (61 out of 100) | City Rank (179 out of 2579 cities). Follow the link to see even more data about this city!
View attachment 432044View attachment 432045
TAS
Senior Member
Ridership score is related to how often people bike for transportation or recreation and makes up part of the lower weighted community score (which was based on people in a City completing a survey).
City Ratings scores result from combining a city’s Bicycle Network Analysis Score and Community Survey Score. The Bicycle Network Analysis Score, which is worth 80% of the City Ratings score, measures the quality of a city’s bicycle network. The Community Survey Score, which is worth 20% of the City Ratings score, measures how people feel about biking in their city. PeopleForBikes releases annual City Ratings results in June.
Here's the survey
Gronk!
Senior Member
Frustration mounts over pilot project on Edmonton’s Victoria Promenade - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca
As part of a pilot project along the popular road, the city added a new bike lane on the north side of the road, ultimately taking away the street parking.
globalnews.ca
thommyjo
Senior Member
This is filled with inaccuracies. I don’t understand why papers publish articles of people spewing blatant lies about parking, accessibility, etc. also, there was extensive engagement done. I was at multiple of those sessions on zoom. Just cause you don’t hear about or choose do engage with consultation, doesn’t mean they “didn’t do enough”…Frustration mounts over pilot project on Edmonton’s Victoria Promenade - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca
As part of a pilot project along the popular road, the city added a new bike lane on the north side of the road, ultimately taking away the street parking.
In high density areas like this that see high use from people all over the city, we need to apply proven best practices and not just do what residents nearby want. Victoria promenade is an amenity for the whole city. Condos nearby don’t “own” that public street and aren’t entitled to parking private vehicles on it.
BrettB
Active Member
There's a survey on the Victoria Promenade open until Oct. 23
jason403
Active Member
Parking would be used a lot more than the bike lanes. It's time this pilot project gets ended as it looks like it will be.
cliffapotamus
Active Member
Those bike lanes get used a lot. I'm glad they are thinking about doing something here.
That being said, this particular design is terrible. the accessibility issue is HUGE. I see it every day ( i bike this every day to work now, since moving this summer), people stranded in the street because there is nowhere for cabs, drop off, DATS, or delivery to go. I don't care about resident on-street parking, but they are right when they say there is virtually no other access to these buildings. older buildings tend not to have good access off alleys, either.
As a cyclist, these lanes are ridiculous. they are awkwardly sized, wider than a mono-directional lane, but still too narrow to pass properly (especially given the rider you want to pass is usually meandering across the whole width as opposed to sticking right to the side so someone has the space to buzz by them) and the dazzling array of marker posts make the space feel convoluted and threatening, as if all this safety stuff is there because it's really easy to crash. The ludicrously overdesigned lanes confuse the crap out of cyclists. the number of people i see riding the wrong way in those lanes (particularly on the south side; people instinctively want to be near the pedestrian space and the river it seems) is shocking, people still ride in both directions in the car lanes to avoid getting caught behind slowpokes in the lanes, and if a pedestrian or jogger hops in (usually a non-issue on lanes like 102 Ave or 127 St) the whole lane gets buggered. As a cyclist, these lanes are crap.
This whole thing could have gone so much better if they put a normal, standard, 3m bi-directional lane on the south side, and left the rest of the road to the cars. parking, emergency access, and cycling would have worked so much better had they not gotten so married to this 'bike directions must be separate' nonsense.
I talked with one of the city people when they were out earlier this month doing canvassing. more politely, of course. they kept saying 'the engineers said they couldn't fit the lanes in like that' referring to parking, driving, and bi-directional lanes in one cross-section, but i don't buy it. Unfortunately the engineer so dead-set on that wasn't there to speak to their decisions themselves.
That being said, this particular design is terrible. the accessibility issue is HUGE. I see it every day ( i bike this every day to work now, since moving this summer), people stranded in the street because there is nowhere for cabs, drop off, DATS, or delivery to go. I don't care about resident on-street parking, but they are right when they say there is virtually no other access to these buildings. older buildings tend not to have good access off alleys, either.
As a cyclist, these lanes are ridiculous. they are awkwardly sized, wider than a mono-directional lane, but still too narrow to pass properly (especially given the rider you want to pass is usually meandering across the whole width as opposed to sticking right to the side so someone has the space to buzz by them) and the dazzling array of marker posts make the space feel convoluted and threatening, as if all this safety stuff is there because it's really easy to crash. The ludicrously overdesigned lanes confuse the crap out of cyclists. the number of people i see riding the wrong way in those lanes (particularly on the south side; people instinctively want to be near the pedestrian space and the river it seems) is shocking, people still ride in both directions in the car lanes to avoid getting caught behind slowpokes in the lanes, and if a pedestrian or jogger hops in (usually a non-issue on lanes like 102 Ave or 127 St) the whole lane gets buggered. As a cyclist, these lanes are crap.
This whole thing could have gone so much better if they put a normal, standard, 3m bi-directional lane on the south side, and left the rest of the road to the cars. parking, emergency access, and cycling would have worked so much better had they not gotten so married to this 'bike directions must be separate' nonsense.
I talked with one of the city people when they were out earlier this month doing canvassing. more politely, of course. they kept saying 'the engineers said they couldn't fit the lanes in like that' referring to parking, driving, and bi-directional lanes in one cross-section, but i don't buy it. Unfortunately the engineer so dead-set on that wasn't there to speak to their decisions themselves.
TAS
Senior Member
As I shared previously, and have checked on a few different times of the day, all the condos along the promenade with visitor parking had several open stalls. If the residents along there are worried about parking, they need to do a better job of having their guests use the spaces that have been provided. Along with that, there is parking on the side streets.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I’ve worked with some planners on street labs. Their inflexibility and lack of imagination is really telling to why we have these issues. They can’t be bothered to find solutions for desired outcomes, but rather want to do the easiest thing and convince you that the outcomes are fine.
thommyjo
Senior Member
14 parking spots vs hundreds of daily riders?
jason403
Active Member
Food and postal deliveries alone would outnumber cyclists. Thousands of vehicles using the space as opposed to a handful of cycling enthusiasts.
BrettB
Active Member
It would be nice if there were actual data to back up all these claims.