DutchBoy
Active Member
I swear I read somewhere that the City recognizes this is a missing link in the Bike Plan. If true, I hope that will create the necessary space for a bike-riding and not bike-walking.
|
|
|
They have said that. I'm sure groups will advocate hard to ensure that's included in designs. It's a critical link. It'll help decrease bike traffic in front of hotel mac as well, which is good. That being a MUP is just asking for some rich tourist/visitor to get plowed by a biker.I swear I read somewhere that the City recognizes this is a missing link in the Bike Plan. If true, I hope that will create the necessary space for a bike-riding and not bike-walking.
I've heard the Hotel Mac restaurant has great truffle popcorn. When case rates lower, I'm going to check it out and contribute to increasing bike traffic thereThey have said that. I'm sure groups will advocate hard to ensure that's included in designs. It's a critical link. It'll help decrease bike traffic in front of hotel mac as well, which is good. That being a MUP is just asking for some rich tourist/visitor to get plowed by a biker.
It baffles me that something this small (albeit important) takes so long to get built here. 3-4 years for this, as nice as the bridge can be, is preposterous.
You'll know how soon-ish but I can assure you that it will integrate.Curious to know how it might or might not integrate with a gondola station
It baffles me that something this small (albeit important) takes so long to get built here. 3-4 years for this, as nice as the bridge can be, is preposterous.
Construction starting next year isn't that far away actually, and roughly a year from start to completion isn't out to lunch given the geotechnical requirements.
I think the Funicular area is supposed to be a nice sightseeing spot, so I just see this as a cool continuation of that.So first of all I'm a fan of either of these designs and I look forward to seeing this built.
Quick question though, and this is based off of an opinion I read on Twitter a day ago.
Wouldn't it be better to have a crosswalk at the top of the hill instead of one of these proposals. It would cost so much less.
(Again this isn't my opinion)
Also, since the Funicular ideally attracts larger crowds than that area otherwise would, it allows for both vehicular and active traffic to flow better since the two aren't conflicting.I think the Funicular area is supposed to be a nice sightseeing spot, so I just see this as a cool continuation of that.
Walking along the bridge, down to the lookout, and then along the gondola might be an honest to god tourist attraction - we don't have many of those in Edmonton.
For people coming up the hill in snow, ice and slippery weather - stopping at the top of the hill is a not easy and crosswalk with a pedestrian light is bound to lead to more accidents. We do want everyone to be safe and the bridge does just that in addition to its linkage to the funicular.So first of all I'm a fan of either of these designs and I look forward to seeing this built.
Quick question though, and this is based off of an opinion I read on Twitter a day ago.
Wouldn't it be better to have a crosswalk at the top of the hill instead of one of these proposals. It would cost so much less.
(Again this isn't my opinion)