dkazzed
Active Member
No crossing at Manning Drive either, at all north of 153 Ave.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
trevorhayden
Active Member
107 Avenue needs a bike PARKWAY!
roe_
Active Member
From the most recent plans that I saw, the City wanted the cycle track to jog south from 107 ave at 135 street to 106 ave and connect with Groat. They seemed to be under the impression that upgrading the existing path along 107 avenue isn't possible without removing all the trees. I provided some feedback that it was a bad idea to try to detour east-west bike traffic south for a few blocks, but the active transport team wasn't that receptive and simply repeated their talking points.
Frustrating to hear that they now have consultation sessions that aren't being widely advertised.
Frustrating to hear that they now have consultation sessions that aren't being widely advertised.
Last edited:
trevorhayden
Active Member
There are too many road lanes on 107 Avenue. Give it a road diet and convert a lane to a bike route!
fromyeg
Active Member
MUP along 97th St from 51st->63rd Ave is getting closer to completion and is quite nice.
The many way finding signs along 91st St are also quite nice.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Did anyone go to 107 Avenue bike path engagement?
thommyjo
Senior Member
Yeah. It was pretty…complicated? Idk. Some real tradeoffs having to be wrestled with. Don’t envy their position to find a good design.
Essentially the main challenges are:
1) either you cut down a bunch of mature trees on the western side of 107ave (163-156st) to create a MUP. Or you upgrade the alley that’s adjacent to be a shared bikeway…which saves trees, but creates bike infrastructure that has to interact with cars (though likely infrequently). Snow clearing in winter for alley, lighting additions, etc would all have to be sorted.
2) 156st to 142st include 1 big intersection and the 2 traffic circles. Essentially the proposal is a suburban MUP like most arterials have. The challenge is that we know how dangerous those can be for intersections. And a high speed, multi lane traffic circle is a recipe for vision zero being obliterated. I honestly don’t know what the solution is. A full reconfiguration isn’t in scope/budget, maybe flashing crossing lights/raised crossings? 104th ave I mentioned as an alternative that hits the E/W needs while avoiding the traffic circles, but that wouldn’t serve residents north of 107ave as nicely. So idk.
3) Groat road bridge - lots of discussion about removal of the slip lanes and essentially widening the pedestrian section to be 4m to become a MUP with a protected barrier. Then connecting to 131st east of groat, snaking south then east to 127st bike lanes.
Other big discussion points for the entire route:
- MUP paths are far infrastructure still. They force bikes out of conflict with cars, but into conflict with pedestrians. Ideally there’s separated space for walking, running, strollers, dogs, groups/kids, etc AND fast moving bike traffic for a district connector/commuter focused route. This route’s central location also makes the potential use higher than a new suburb MUP (which is a fair compromise in those areas), so the argument against MUP use here is decently high.
- raised crossings vs curb ramps at crossings were discussed. Think 102ave in glenora and the mess that is. How do we avoid that? We need continuous, raised crossings to be safe, clear of snow/ice/puddles, and to slow stopping/turning vehicles from blowing into the crosswalks like in glenora.
So yeah, not sure where it all will end. But it’s a tough one. And 107ave is such a critical car arterial now, with SPR being LRT focused. And then the bridge crossing, in light of all the west end construction will be a hot topic if any disruptions are added there. So lane removals are political suicide.
My personal opinion:
- do a MUP path. Cut the trees, but then replant way more along the entire stretch. And make the path as wide as possible in all sections to allow passing vs keeping exactly 3m everywhere. If there’s space, balloon out to 4m, it’s like a highway passing lane.
- all crossings except major intersections HAVE to be continuous/raised.
- traffic circles need major lights (flashing yellow ones) and raised crossings + signage. And awesome LEDs to illuminate the path/riders leading up to and along the crossing.
- groat bridge need the SW slip lane removed, extend the sidewalk for crossing (which removes the extra southside lane), then connect to 131st.
-131st to 127st needs a MUP to ensure winter snow clearing and safety for kids (even though it’s a safe/low traffic road). It’s also good for wayfinding to keep infrastructure continuous vs dropping off into roads.
northlands
Senior Member
^ I think your 104 ave idea is a winner if executed correctly with n/s connector lanes on 135, 139, 144, 150, 154, 159, and 163 connecting to 110/109 ave. Bonus that it acts like a traffic calming measure in the neighbourhoods. Maybe that's absolutely insane but like you've mentioned, pretty hard to take away any roadway space on 107 given the traffic volumes, and the traffic circles crosswalks are suicide to use as a non-vehicle entity.
thommyjo
Senior Member
104ave also hits numerous schools, then the columbian cafe/LRT station in glenora. So it's not the worst route. But I'm sure detailed analysis would disclose other challenges.
They are planning to connect SPR to 148st along 104ave as a neighbourhood route. then 148st will have a N/S route. So some of it is already in the works.
107ave is a great route still, just some real limitations/trade offs.
fromyeg
Active Member
Bridge over MacKinnon by 149st is nice
TAS
Senior Member
Well summed up.
The city is proposing 3.0m for the SUP from 163st to Groat Rd - a little wider would be nice as we're already hearing conflicts on some busier SUPs between bikes and pedestrians. This is supposed to be our A1 active transportation network - let's do it well and enhance safety.
Speaking of safety - the 149st slip lanes and the 142 st traffic circle were designed for free-flow traffic and maintaining speed. And that makes pedestrians and cyclists vulnerable without extra safety measures to slow vehicles down. At pedestrian/cyclist crossings, a few measures as you noted need to be integrated here to slow things down and make stopping easy. Safety has to be priority over speed.
The continuous/raised crossings at intersections along the route (other than major intersections) is also a best practice (and a must) as you noted.
Just east of 131st where a pedestrian was struck and killed, this is what the sidewalk looks like - light poles in the middle of the sidewalk - reducing visibility and a major accessibility barrier.
trevorhayden
Active Member
I am most struck by how the proposal simply reduces lane widths to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians across Groat Road. Why not extend lane narrowing the whole length of the project? Then you can provide protected and separate paths for pedestrians and cyclists!
thommyjo
Senior Member
Glenwood renewal looks awesome.
www.edmonton.ca
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.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
I responded to the survey asking that they put the shared path back along 100 Ave (apparently it was in the draft design but removed from the final one). North South connections look great but east-west looks very disjointed.Glenwood renewal looks awesome.
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.
View attachment 609217
thommyjo
Senior Member
I saw that. I wonder if it’s because of 95ave and 107ave and limited space for 100ave? Seems weird they’d remove without a great reason though. Let us know what they tell you if you get any response!