[IanO]

Is there a need for that though? Do we have the density and people crunch? Is there a lack of sidewalk/curbside patio or other use spaces?

I'm a 'Downtowner', primarily a walker and big patio'r, but just don't see that needed, wanted or deserved here.

 

[TAS]

Is there a need for that though? Do we have the density and people crunch? Is there a lack of sidewalk/curbside patio or other use spaces?

I'm a 'Downtowner', primarily a walker and big patio'r, but just don't see that needed, wanted or deserved here.

If we don't have the density, why then do we need so many roads with so many lanes of traffic - 5, 6 or more lanes on some roads for cars only?

 

[Airboy]

It's certainly nice to have new sidewalks on Jasper Ave and the addition of some trees and benches and overall more walking space.

At the same time, the section of Jasper Ave where I live, between 109 and 116 streets is still going to have 5 lanes of traffic and on various stretches a couple of extra lanes for parking. So many lanes for cars is disappointing and doesn't make for a pleasant walking experience with the eventual new sidewalks. With construction going on, it has been nice just seeing one lane of traffic in each direction.

Toronto recently announced they are taking one of its busiest streets into downtown, Yonge street, and adding bike lanes to it - essentially taking it from four lanes to two.

In a vote of 19-3 in favour, one councillor said,

"There's plenty of room there and we can find a very safe and attractive way to include bike lanes within the streetscape."

Another said it's time to stop thinking of Yonge Street as a thoroughfare from one destination to another. One final comment from their council I will share is this:

"The addition of bike lanes on Yonge Street will revitalize local business, while also improving safety and relieving traffic congestion"

I wish our city and council would have similar thought. Jasper Avenue, 109 Street (so many car lanes), 99 Street and others should all be considered.

Younge street was always a parking lot when I lived there. That said this is nice to see, the interaction between cyclist and pedestrians is going to be interesting. And yes Jasper Ave could use less traffic. However with 104 being reduced in size I expect JA to pick up some of the additional traffic.

 

[danimori]

If we don't have the density, why then do we need so many roads with so many lanes of traffic - 5, 6 or more lanes on some roads for cars only?

Agreed. We need to start looking at ALL modes equally. We should be asking questions like, is it convenient and safe for someone on a bike to access the new DQ on Jasper? Can they do it legally? If not, we failed on how we redesigned this street. We keep designing bike infrastructure as a thoroughfare, not as something that allows local community members to access services in THEIR community.

 

[quit]

Agreed. We need to start looking at ALL modes equally. We should be asking questions like, is it convenient and safe for someone on a bike to access the new DQ on Jasper? Can they do it legally? If not, we failed on how we redesigned this street. We keep designing bike infrastructure as a thoroughfare, not as something that allows local community members to access services in THEIR community.

Your last point is interesting on community. While I don't disagree, I imagine the consideration is about the larger city and integration into the larger road network. That said, more lanes here doesn't really help the entire road given there are bottlenecks elsewhere that create congestion anyway. The lack of long term strategic planning for the road network in the inner part of Edmonton has created a no win situation for planning in my opinion.

I think Calgary designed their road system much better than Edmonton and while it likely cost them more up front, the separated freeway system in every direction is much more strategic than our makeshift solutions that are only going to hurt more as the city continues to grow. The lack of a central and zero real N/S volume roads forces us to have volume in places where it shouldn't be. The lack of foresight really rears its ugly head on projects like these where planners are trying to balance multiple uses. Doesn't matter how much you reduce traffic - if you mix cars, bicycles, and pedestrians in the same environment, you are going to have issues.

Having distinct operational and strategic policy outlooks is important for these reasons.

 

[ChazYEG]

Your last point is interesting on community. While I don't disagree, I imagine the consideration is about the larger city and integration into the larger road network. That said, more lanes here doesn't really help the entire road given there are bottlenecks elsewhere that create congestion anyway. The lack of long term strategic planning for the road network in the inner part of Edmonton has created a no win situation for planning in my opinion.

I think Calgary designed their road system much better than Edmonton and while it likely cost them more up front, the separated freeway system in every direction is much more strategic than our makeshift solutions that are only going to hurt more as the city continues to grow. The lack of a central and zero real N/S volume roads forces us to have volume in places where it shouldn't be. The lack of foresight really rears its ugly head on projects like these where planners are trying to balance multiple uses. Doesn't matter how much you reduce traffic - if you mix cars, bicycles, and pedestrians in the same environment, you are going to have issues.

Having distinct operational and strategic policy outlooks is important for these reasons.

I'll have to disagree with you on the matter of a central volume road, at least. And I disagree that having freeways crossing the city benefits anywhere. Just see where that has led cities like LA, Dallas, Detroit, etc...
What we lack is proper incentive for people to leave their cars home and move around by transit, bike or walking, like so many of Asia's and Europe's cities do (and some in North America as well) and this passes through designing safe and welcoming sidewalks and bike lanes, building better transit networks (sometimes just a few tweaks will do wonders for a system) and, also, making some unpopular decisions, such as reducing car lanes to introduce separated bike lanes, bus lanes and even proper street parking (we don't need 3.5m lanes to park cars, we could very well do with 2m dedicated parking and larger sidewalks, for example).

I do agree with the lack of a North/South connector that is actually useful and I believe both 170 St and Wayne Gretzky could be converted to "semi" freeways with speeds in the 70 km/h and less intersections to solve this issue.

 

[Avenuer]

I'll have to disagree with you on the matter of a central volume road, at least. And I disagree that having freeways crossing the city benefits anywhere. Just see where that has led cities like LA, Dallas, Detroit, etc...
What we lack is proper incentive for people to leave their cars home and move around by transit, bike or walking, like so many of Asia's and Europe's cities do (and some in North America as well) and this passes through designing safe and welcoming sidewalks and bike lanes, building better transit networks (sometimes just a few tweaks will do wonders for a system) and, also, making some unpopular decisions, such as reducing car lanes to introduce separated bike lanes, bus lanes and even proper street parking (we don't need 3.5m lanes to park cars, we could very well do with 2m dedicated parking and larger sidewalks, for example).

I do agree with the lack of a North/South connector that is actually useful and I believe both 170 St and Wayne Gretzky could be converted to "semi" freeways with speeds in the 70 km/h and less intersections to solve this issue.

Both 170th and WG are part of the former 'inner ring road' that was detailed in the previous Municipal Development Plan. I agree that if we wanted to improve inner city traffic movement, such as for freight, improving these two roads, in addition to the work already underway on the Yellowhead (the northern section of the inner ring road) and existing conditions of Whitemud Drive (southern portion), would be much easier than constructing an entirely new route (such as what was planned through MIll Creek Ravine back in the 1960s and 70s).

 

[ChazYEG]

Both 170th and WG are part of the former 'inner ring road' that was detailed in the previous Municipal Development Plan. I agree that if we wanted to improve inner city traffic movement, such as for freight, improving these two roads, in addition to the work already underway on the Yellowhead (the northern section of the inner ring road) and existing conditions of Whitemud Drive (southern portion), would be much easier than constructing an entirely new route (such as what was planned through MIll Creek Ravine back in the 1960s and 70s).

Exactly. And if it is easy to move around by transit/bike/walking within the "Inner Ring Road" and it is well connected to the Anthony Henday, we can focus on having some streets move from being a mix of thoroughfare and mains street to be specialized in either one of these things (Jasper should be a main street, as opposed to 104 Ave which should continue to be primarily a thoroughfare to get in and out of downtown)

 

[TAS]

Younge street was always a parking lot when I lived there. That said this is nice to see, the interaction between cyclist and pedestrians is going to be interesting. And yes Jasper Ave could use less traffic. However with 104 being reduced in size I expect JA to pick up some of the additional traffic.

Yes, it will be interesting. The reason for Toronto's rapid expansion of its network of protected bike lanes since the start of the pandemic - soon on Yonge Street (a 6km stretch) and several others such as University Avenue - has been because there is a noticeable reduction in car traffic. There's a shift and cities are taking action now or some cities are.

The downtown company I work for of 1,200 employees has changed for good - we're only having 250 back to the office this fall and the rest is work from home and remote permanently. I will still be walking or riding to work. Stantec is another example of a large volume of staff who are going to be working from home. There's going to be less traffic coming in the mornings and going out of downtown at the end of the day and less need for parking.

I think it's an opportunity to act and reimagine some of our streets now, and not only the sidewalks.

 

[quit]

I'll have to disagree with you on the matter of a central volume road, at least. And I disagree that having freeways crossing the city benefits anywhere. Just see where that has led cities like LA, Dallas, Detroit, etc...
What we lack is proper incentive for people to leave their cars home and move around by transit, bike or walking, like so many of Asia's and Europe's cities do (and some in North America as well) and this passes through designing safe and welcoming sidewalks and bike lanes, building better transit networks (sometimes just a few tweaks will do wonders for a system) and, also, making some unpopular decisions, such as reducing car lanes to introduce separated bike lanes, bus lanes and even proper street parking (we don't need 3.5m lanes to park cars, we could very well do with 2m dedicated parking and larger sidewalks, for example).

I do agree with the lack of a North/South connector that is actually useful and I believe both 170 St and Wayne Gretzky could be converted to "semi" freeways with speeds in the 70 km/h and less intersections to solve this issue.

Not everyone can leave their cars at home. Businesses still have to transport goods and there are other sectors such as trades that also have to drive. Like I said in my post, I agree that enabling communities to walk/bike are important. However, that also means enabling safety for those community members and any time you intermingle automobiles with bikes and/or pedestrians, there will be accidents. Freeways help reduce and prevent some of that co-mingling and reduce the load on community roads, because commercial users can get from point A to B more efficiently. We do not have a west/east route other than the Whitemud and Yellowhead, which are several KM apart, so often it is more efficient to cross centrally using what access routes we have. Cities have to plan for more than just residential users and I think that is lost on some in this thread (that is part of the strategic policy context). As someone that lives in a very walkable and central neighbourhood, I still feel unsafe at times, because of the type of traffic that goes through our area due to a lack of a central route.

I didn't use LA, Dallas, or Detroit as examples for good reason. You could likely add Vancouver to that list though as it is another city prone to traffic jams without any solution in place, even though it has great transit.

 

[ChazYEG]

Not everyone can leave their cars at home. Businesses still have to transport goods and there are other sectors such as trades that also have to drive. Like I said in my post, I agree that enabling communities to walk/bike are important. However, that also means enabling safety for those community members and any time you intermingle automobiles with bikes and/or pedestrians, there will be accidents. Freeways help reduce and prevent some of that co-mingling and reduce the load on community roads, because commercial users can get from point A to B more efficiently. We do not have a west/east route other than the Whitemud and Yellowhead, which are several KM apart, so often it is more efficient to cross centrally using what access routes we have. Cities have to plan for more than just residential users and I think that is lost on some in this thread (that is part of the strategic policy context). As someone that lives in a very walkable and central neighbourhood, I still feel unsafe at times, because of the type of traffic that goes through our area due to a lack of a central route.

I didn't use LA, Dallas, or Detroit as examples for good reason. You could likely add Vancouver to that list though as it is another city prone to traffic jams without any solution in place, even though it has great transit.

I wonder how all of those European big cities handle these issues without freeways scarring their cores...

 

[Cumberland]

@westcoastjos Where would you have built another east/west freeway in Edmonton? I think we got it right with the general alignments of Yellowhead and Whitemud (even though the implementation could have been better). I definitely wouldn't want the Jasper Freeway we bailed on.

I don't envy Calgary's freeway system, which was built for far less traffic than it carries today, and will require billions in upgrades to keep from failure. It makes the Yellowhead Freeway conversion seem like pocket change.

 

[quit]

@westcoastjos Where would you have built another east/west freeway in Edmonton? I think we got it right with the general alignments of Yellowhead and Whitemud (even though the implementation could have been better). I definitely wouldn't want the Jasper Freeway we bailed on.

I don't envy Calgary's freeway system, which was built for far less traffic than it carries today, and will require billions in upgrades to keep from failure. It makes the Yellowhead Freeway conversion seem like pocket change.

Likely something parallel to Jasper Ave like most cities have next to their core for access. 97th Ave Corridor.

Lack of central west/east route makes express routes hard in Edmonton too - why the Valley Line is long overdue.

Plenty of large European cities still have major roads/highways either through the core or a ring road closer to the core - Berlin, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London, Paris, etc. Sure, they have walkable streets, but they still have major through roads. Difference is the walkable streets have more missing middle and weren't built for cars, but horse drawn carriages, so they don't accommodate vehicles. I also think they utilize one ways better than we do on their central roads. Prague for example still has a one way three lane road with an additional parking lane going through the core.

Make Jasper Ave one way and 104th the other way and reduce it to 3-4 lanes with a parking lane and Bob's your uncle.

 

[ChazYEG]

Likely something parallel to Jasper Ave like most cities have next to their core for access. 97th Ave Corridor.

Lack of central west/east route makes express routes hard in Edmonton too - why the Valley Line is long overdue.

Plenty of large European cities still have major roads/highways either through the core or a ring road closer to the core - Berlin, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London, Paris, etc. Sure, they have walkable streets, but they still have major through roads. Difference is the walkable streets have more missing middle and weren't built for cars, but horse drawn carriages, so they don't accommodate vehicles. I also think they utilize one ways better than we do on their central roads. Prague for example still has a one way three lane road with an additional parking lane going through the core.

Make Jasper Ave one way and 104th the other way and reduce it to 3-4 lanes with a parking lane and Bob's your uncle.

I've been saying we should use one-ways ever since I've moved to Edmonton. And not only 104 and Jasper avenues, but other streets as well.
And I'm not denying we need major thoroughfares closer to the core, but I don't believe Jasper, specifically, should be one of them. I'd stick to 104, 107 and 111 Avenue for E/W and 95 and 97 St for N/S at 60km/h with shorter intersection stoplights times and no parking and 170, 149 and Gretzky being semi-expressways to bypass central traffic.
What I'm absolutely against, however, is freeways breaking the boundaries of the cores and cutting through mature residential neighborhoods, alienating them from the core, like happened to almost every major North American city and created the gravel wastelands we see in most of them.
Edmonton is in a very rare and desirable position, not having these great dividers that killed downtowns all across the continent. Few cities have places like Westmount, Glenora, Prince Rupert, Queen Mary Park, etc... which are continuously linked to the Downtown Core and can be improved for transit, bikes and walkability. We make poor use of such potential to create a lively, affordable and accessible city.

All of that said, I'm not at all satisfied with the current project on Jasper. It is underwhelming and doesn't address any of the structural issues with the avenue. It's still a "stroad", not an actual complete street (full of good destinations, fine grained and walkable) nor a road (linking points A and B fast and simple)

 

[quit]

I've been saying we should use one-ways ever since I've moved to Edmonton. And not only 104 and Jasper avenues, but other streets as well.
And I'm not denying we need major thoroughfares closer to the core, but I don't believe Jasper, specifically, should be one of them. I'd stick to 104, 107 and 111 Avenue for E/W and 95 and 97 St for N/S at 60km/h with shorter intersection stoplights times and no parking and 170, 149 and Gretzky being semi-expressways to bypass central traffic.
What I'm absolutely against, however, is freeways breaking the boundaries of the cores and cutting through mature residential neighborhoods, alienating them from the core, like happened to almost every major North American city and created the gravel wastelands we see in most of them.
Edmonton is in a very rare and desirable position, not having these great dividers that killed downtowns all across the continent. Few cities have places like Westmount, Glenora, Prince Rupert, Queen Mary Park, etc... which are continuously linked to the Downtown Core and can be improved for transit, bikes and walkability. We make poor use of such potential to create a lively, affordable and accessible city.

All of that said, I'm not at all satisfied with the current project on Jasper. It is underwhelming and doesn't address any of the structural issues with the avenue. It's still a "stroad", not an actual complete street (full of good destinations, fine grained and walkable) nor a road (linking points A and B fast and simple)

I don't disagree. A lot of what you propose makes sense. Edmonton's historical built form hurts it and makes it hard to get rid of parking completely. A lot of the older apartments were not built with adequate parking nor parking garages, so street parking was a necessity. In addition, transit has never been that good in Edmonton and doesn't seem to be getting a lot better - we are still a winter city and expecting people to walk many blocks is a tough sell.

Unfortunately, Glenora is never going to be affordable and likely never going to be more lively/livable in this generation due to the extreme nimbyism. At least Westmount and other areas aren't going that way completely. That said, there was that Beljan project that didn't pass zoning on the west end steps away from a future LRT stop. There was also the excellent proposal next to Vi's for Pies that got promptly shutdown as well. I don't feel we are moving the goal posts enough in Edmonton, so looking at how to incrementally improve with what we have rather than massive cultural changes (increasing biking/walking) makes sense to me.

One ways seem like a good incremental step to reduce the number of lanes on Jasper/104 from a safety perspective and reducing vehicle volume. Starting with getting rid of 1-2 lanes would be an easier proposal than going down to two lanes. Policy changes/shifts occur over time and almost never fast. My thoughts on a central freeway were more historical wishful thinking than proposing that for today.

I'm a realist as you can likely tell.