|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
The stretch of 113st north of 111Ave is a trickier area at times. I have to go from the street to the sidewalk when the church on the corner is getting out - plus people are coming in and out of the seniors rec centre and further down is all the parking for the ball diamonds.
If we're talking putting bike lanes on multiple consecutive side streets like 113, 114, 115, then no. But we're talking about a few select streets to complete a more protected network where a more concentrated number of people by bike can utilize.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Yes, but there would be considerably more value if we had a complete network to begin with. This bike lane is being built near Kingsway, 109th, and 111th, all of which have pedestrian sidewalks instead of MUPs. Cyclists are technically supposed to ride on the road.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have small-scale bike infrastructure in residential areas - we do need it. But connecting the entirety of Edmonton by focusing on roads that go places should come first.
109th (no bike infrastructure currently being added, 60 km/h, connects NE Edm. to NW):
113th st (small, isolated neighborhood, 30km/h, low density, get a bike lane in that bad boy immediately)
Didama
Active Member
I have to disagree here. Look at the 'Oliverbahn' bikelane in Wikwentowin. It was built on a residential street (102 Ave), one block off busy Jasper Avenue. There is just no way that I would have preferred them building a bikelane right on Jasper instead. First of all, it would actually increase the pushback against bikelanes by car-first folks and, secondly, it would actually make the experience that much less enjoyable because you're not on a leafy road but rather than a major thoroughfare. I would also argue that riding on a residential road without a dedicated and separated bikelane isn't all that safe. It's these residential streets where drivers often feel like they have nothing to worry about and they don't look out for bikes, scooters, etc. I live on a residential street near downtown, and cars are ALWAYS speeding, running stop signs, etc. Personally, I like the city's approach of putting these lanes on residential streets rather than main thoroughfares (although of course they still need to go near major nodes so as to be useful).
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Agreed, that is a perfect execution of bike infrastructure. It connects areas where people actually need to go (up until Stony Plain Road) and integrates the 102nd MUP with a cyclist-friendly way Downtown, and the residential integration is better than having it through Jasper's mess of intersections.
The problem is that while it sounds great to avoid using major roadways for alternative means of travel, there are no consistent paths connecting most neighbourhoods without using major roads. That opportunity was unique to the area.
TAS
Senior Member
111Ave is getting 2025 work from 106 to 121 Streets as part of the network plan and connects with this 113st route which the city has identified in Bike Plan as a neighbourhood route with high bike trip potential - thus the higher quality infrastructure.
ntt1
Active Member
Anything that calms neighborhood and makes it more uncomfortable for people to speed is a good thing, imo.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been blown by someone when going 30 in a 30 zone or ~37-40kmh in a 40 zone on my bike. Unfortunately some people lose all rationality when they see a cyclist and absolutely must pass them at all costs, safety be damned.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been blown by someone when going 30 in a 30 zone or ~37-40kmh in a 40 zone on my bike. Unfortunately some people lose all rationality when they see a cyclist and absolutely must pass them at all costs, safety be damned.
Last edited:
northlands
Senior Member
113th st bike lane would be a perfect bike commuting route for a lot of Blatchford also, no?
113 st -> 105 ave -> destination (MacEwan, downtown offices, Rogers/ICE, or through Railtown MUP down to U of A/Garneau)
Best way to sell bike lanes is keep them off main arterials. Perhaps 113th is largely a 30 km/h quiet road, but during commuting hours it does get a fair amount of use from impatient drivers shortcutting between 107-111 ave. Bet most are going a lot faster than 30, too.
113 st -> 105 ave -> destination (MacEwan, downtown offices, Rogers/ICE, or through Railtown MUP down to U of A/Garneau)
Best way to sell bike lanes is keep them off main arterials. Perhaps 113th is largely a 30 km/h quiet road, but during commuting hours it does get a fair amount of use from impatient drivers shortcutting between 107-111 ave. Bet most are going a lot faster than 30, too.
TAS
Senior Member
Yes. Also, the plan is for a lot of housing density between 105-106Aves between 102 to 116 Streets. The exisiting bike lane on 105 Ave connecting to 113St to head north to NAIT etc makes a good route and potential for decent volume.
Reducing car traffic volume on 113st becomes more important then as area densifies, which this protected route will do.
Didama
Active Member
northlands
Senior Member
Instead of directly near above/below 111 ave, hear me out for bike infra instead of MUP:
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
I'm a fan of this idea, makes a bike-friendly approach to integrate the 111 ave and 107 ave routes without putting cyclists on the major roadways. Here's what the City is planning for the area.
Edit: forgot the legend.
dkazzed
Active Member
114 Ave already has a MUP between the CN Rail MUP and Groat Road.
Protected bicycle infrastructure more about attracting new and casual riders who's definition of safe infrastructure is very different than seasoned cyclists. And while we may have new and casual riders in mind, all riders benefit.
Protected bicycle infrastructure more about attracting new and casual riders who's definition of safe infrastructure is very different than seasoned cyclists. And while we may have new and casual riders in mind, all riders benefit.
northlands
Senior Member
All the more reason!
I will say though, I really dislike MUPs the way they built that section. Pedestrians don't expect anything fast moving and assume they are simply wide sidewalks. I don't visit this thread often so I am probably just repeating frustrations
dkazzed
Active Member
I did observe that while riding there, moreso than other MUPs. I transitioned to the quiet adjacent road near the senior complex.
I do ponder almost daily what is the best way to safely pass pedestrians without startling them. Half of the people don't hear my bell, even without headphones on, and half are startled nearly to death. Only a small fraction of pedestrians just wave me by to acknowledge my presence. I generally slow down to 5-10 when passing kids, very elderly, and dogs, 15-20 when passing everyone else (smaller number coming from behind, bigger number going the other way). I aim to ring my bell and announce which side I'm passing on 3-5 seconds before passing them. Someone must've done a study on what works best.
I do ponder almost daily what is the best way to safely pass pedestrians without startling them. Half of the people don't hear my bell, even without headphones on, and half are startled nearly to death. Only a small fraction of pedestrians just wave me by to acknowledge my presence. I generally slow down to 5-10 when passing kids, very elderly, and dogs, 15-20 when passing everyone else (smaller number coming from behind, bigger number going the other way). I aim to ring my bell and announce which side I'm passing on 3-5 seconds before passing them. Someone must've done a study on what works best.