[Gronk!]

I wouldn't be opposed to a path extension like that in addition to a bike lane on 112 Ave, but I would consider it to be an absolute failure as an alternative.
Having the bike lane directly on 112 Ave supports access to shopping and services which is critically important to supporting usage of this infrastructure. Not to mention grade changes, inevitable winter condition, or that since it's hidden/out of the way its usage would be far lower for casual users; many will still opt to just ride on the sidewalk down the main road anyways.
Personally I would use a bike lane on 112 to get to the Save-On. I wouldn't use this one under the Kinnaird bridge ever.

112 Ave definitely needs a separated MUP on the north side for access to Save On and Borden Park.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

I wouldn't be opposed to a path extension like that in addition to a bike lane on 112 Ave, but I would consider it to be an absolute failure as an alternative.
Having the bike lane directly on 112 Ave supports access to shopping and services which is critically important to supporting usage of this infrastructure. Not to mention grade changes, inevitable winter condition, or that since it's hidden/out of the way its usage would be far lower for casual users; many will still opt to just ride on the sidewalk down the main road anyways.
Personally I would use a bike lane on 112 to get to the Save-On. I wouldn't use this one under the Kinnaird bridge ever.

I agree that a bike lane on 112 ave would be preferable, but I'm not holding my breath. I do not see them spending the money or disruption to mess with that intersection. I think a proper bike crossing at 80th street from the bike lane along 112ave S would allow access to Save On a lot better than currently is available.

My idea is mainly to fix the conflict I see with bike commuters from Highlands and area travelling into the core, which I would argue is the majority of bike usage through here. I agree it has problems with grade, maintenance, and visibility but IMO it would be the most realistic way to get real separated bike infrastructure through the area.

As northlands pointed out, the lack of bike consideration on the Kinnaird Bridge rehab was a major miss by the city and IMO is further evidence of the lack of actual commitment to bike infrastructure by city administration.

 

[TAS]

Proposal to pedestrianize section of 83 Ave. Makes total sense.

 

[Gronk!]

City invests in better bike parking at schools, but reaching it remains tough

The City of Edmonton has set aside $75,000 for schools and other organizations to improve bike parking, but some cyclists suggest challenges remain to feel safe riding to those new spots.

edmonton.taproot.news

 

[dkazzed]

You can never get rid of stupid. Seeing cars traveling in separated bike lanes in Vancouver was almost a daily occurrence.

 

[northlands]

On the agenda: Night mayor, lights for bikes, cleaning the core

This week, councillors are set to discuss a nighttime economy strategy, upgrades for lights on active transportation routes, and enhanced cleaning services in the core.

edmonton.taproot.news

• Administration estimates it would need between $20 million and $65 million to upgrade the lighting on 86 kilometres of its active transportation routes to meet current requirements. The lower end of the range would see lighting improved on district connector routes, while the higher end of the range would include neighbourhood routes. Administration said council could fund the lighting upgrades through the $100 million active transportation fund that was approved in the 2023-2026 budget, but that could mean up to 60 kilometres of new active transportation infrastructure would be cancelled. A report detailing the lighting enhancement options is scheduled to be presented at the urban planning committee meeting on April 9.

 

[thommyjo]

On the agenda: Night mayor, lights for bikes, cleaning the core

This week, councillors are set to discuss a nighttime economy strategy, upgrades for lights on active transportation routes, and enhanced cleaning services in the core.

edmonton.taproot.news

I think at this stage we skip lighting for most routes. Most people ride most in the summer, which we thankfully have very long daylight hours during. Anyone biking at night is already required to have lights and a nice $80-120 light for bikes works incredibly well.

No routes should be cut from being built to add lights unless somehow severely needed.

 

[northlands]

I think at this stage we skip lighting for most routes. Most people ride most in the summer, which we thankfully have very long daylight hours during. Anyone biking at night is already required to have lights and a nice $80-120 light for bikes works incredibly well.

No routes should be cut from being built to add lights unless somehow severely needed.

I complete agree. Lighting is important, but not nearly as important as getting the network expanded and connected.

 

[Gronk!]

Knowing the way this city council operates, they'll cut routes in favor of unneeded lighting.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

Knowing the way this city council operates, they'll cut routes in favor of unneeded lighting.

I don't think I would say "unneeded lighting", lighting plays a big role in many women's sense of safety in public spaces. If we want to make our public infrastructure comfortable for everyone it has high value. But I would agree it shouldn't come by redirecting planned expansion. Rather, lighting should come from the same budget as lighting upgrades on roads.

 

[The Woodruff]

I'd like to see the routes first, lighting later personally.

 

[thommyjo]

Spend 1mil buying 10,000 bike headlights and give them away for free before you spend 20-60mil on pathway lights

 

[thommyjo]

Glenwood Renewal!

This honestly looks awesome. Highlights:
- tons of new trees and boulevards
- shared paths everywhere
- new sidewalks
- lots of curb bulbs, raised crossings, and continuous crossings.
- alley SUP is big for 170st arterial not having a proper bike route yet (sidewalk west of 170st needs one still honestly, just got built before that was the standard).

Please share feedback and affirm the good work here. Still some strong anti bike/change people in this community. So let’s show them people like this direction!

Building Great Neighbourhoods - Glenwood (163 Street West) | City of Edmonton

Glenwood (163 Street West) has been chosen for Neighbourhood and Alley Renewal. Planning and design is currently underway.

www.edmonton.ca

 

[TAS]

Anyone know when shared scooters, e-bikes will be available? I assume Lime and Bird are likely providers again?

 

[northlands]

Anyone know when shared scooters, e-bikes will be available? I assume Lime and Bird are likely providers again?

City is dragging their feet on licensing again this year--recall in 2022 they didn't provide licenses till mid May, and those licenses were good for 20 months (so up until roughly December 2023). Last year they returned right around early April and the weather hasn't been much different this year so they'd be out if the City allowed them.

I suspect City is waiting for spring sweep to be completed prior to issuing licensing to reduce incidents of people wiping out on gravel.