News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton

Wolf willow road (1&2)

69ave

95ave
IMG_4003.jpeg
IMG_4001.jpeg
IMG_3998.jpeg
IMG_3993.jpeg
 
New 113St MUP to Kingsway Ave (the crossing and Kingsway Ave MUP to 122st will be completed in 2026)
20251025_165952.jpg


Nice path southbound with views of downtown.
20251025_165928.jpg
20251025_170024.jpg


No roadway space was taken north of 111Ave.
20251025_170142.jpg


111Ave (northside of street) MUP in the works
20251025_170244.jpg


113st street parking was removed south of 111Ave for this permanent two way bike lane. Traffic now one way.
20251025_170345.jpg
20251025_170514.jpg


No bike sensor at 111Ave and 107Ave crossings. The113st path connects to network at 105Ave here.
20251025_170906.jpg
 
fjordgard said:
Is there a chance these haven’t been put in yet and will be next year? Are there beg buttons (or whatever you call them) to get the light to change like at 107 ave by Manchester Square?
Click to expand...

The light at 107Ave/113st does not change right away when the crossing button is pressed by pedestrians or cyclists.

There was no traffic on 107Ave in either direction when I was there and so I could have just gone across, but I waited to see and it was somewhere from 45-60 seconds wait for light to change (and it had been green prior to me arriving at intersection - it didn't go through a walking cycle just before I arrived).

The 111Ave light changed right away when pressing the button.
 
TAS said:
The light at 107Ave/113st does not change right away when the crossing button is pressed by pedestrians or cyclists.

There was no traffic on 107Ave in either direction when I was there and so I could have just gone across, but I waited to see and it was somewhere from 45-60 seconds wait for light to change (and it had been green prior to me arriving at intersection - it didn't go through a walking cycle just before I arrived).

The 111Ave light changed right away when pressing the button.
Click to expand...
I hope they can install sensors for 107 AV this season, but that would be optimistic. Usually my timing with riding along 113 ST is just right and I can get the lights to change just as I push the button, but with the wind slowing me down yesterday, I was waiting a surprisingly long time for the light cycle to go at both 107 and 111 Av.

I'm also disappointed that the City seems to have cut back on a proposed asphalt path that branched off the MUP at 113 AV and 113 ST that would connect to the Kingsway/Princess Elizabeth intersection.
 
archited said:
Hey, I used to live in that apartment -- the Viking Arms (before I bought my first house) pictured in the second photo above.
Click to expand...
Viking Arms is at Southgate (106 St & 46 Ave), this is West Edmonton Village in Callingwood. Very similarly developed pockets of the 70s style concrete blocks, but wouldn't be your former home in this case!
 
Calgary's new mayor committed to the following during the election:

"Take the politics out of active transportation by tying funding to usage. If 2.5% of trips are made by walking or wheeling, 2.5% of the transportation capital budget should support those modes. This creates a fair, transparent basis for investing in transportation, fixing pathway gaps, and building long-awaited links..."

Rather than announcing another $100million over 4 years, who thinks providing a % based on usage is a better, less controversial and secure way to fund ongoing active transportation networks/bike lanes/MUPs?

Special projects like neighbourhood renewals, I would advocate, would be funded separately in addition to regular transportation funding.

This could be regarded as still a conservative investment in active transportation since it has been largely underinvested in and our city goals aim to increase usage which one could argue supports a bit higher level of investment to better meet those targets.
 
Last edited:
TAS said:
Calgary's new mayor committed to the following during the election:

"Take the politics out of active transportation by tying funding to usage. If 2.5% of trips are made by walking or wheeling, 2.5% of the transportation capital budget should support those modes. This creates a fair, transparent basis for investing in transportation, fixing pathway gaps, and building long-awaited links..."

Rather than announcing another $100million over 4 years, who thinks providing a % based on usage is a better, less controversial and secure way to fund ongoing active transportation networks/bike lanes/MUPs?

Special projects like neighbourhood renewals, I would advocate, would be funded separately in addition to regular transportation funding.

This could be regarded as still a conservative investment in active transportation since it has been largely underinvested in and our ciry goals aim to increase usage which one could argue supports a bit higher level of usage to better meet those targets.
Click to expand...
I think this is 100% a good approach.

1) Gives an objective standard.
2) Creates consistency for planning projects vs stop start funding.
3) creates way more funding than people realize.

A few challenges:
1) in many central areas 4-8% of trips are by bike vs 0-1% in many suburbs. Do we also tie projects to neighborhood level use?
2) As we know, induced demand exists and without investment, riders won’t exist in places without anything currently. Arguably a minimum grid should be finished first before tying funding to useage.
3) we don’t do this with roads or transit, and especially not pedestrian infrastructure. Does this complicate other areas? Transit often has massive ups and downs in capital spending. And we overspend on transit because it’s a service that helps people save money and not be as reliant on other social services too. Plus improves traffic for all road users. Would we “overspend” on bike infrastructure to help ensure university areas are super well served for example?

In the end, it might be the best approach to make the fighting go away. And tbh, bike lane haters are often so ignorant to how much money this actually would be. It would be a very reasonable amount of funding long term.
 
TAS said:
Calgary's new mayor committed to the following during the election:

"Take the politics out of active transportation by tying funding to usage. If 2.5% of trips are made by walking or wheeling, 2.5% of the transportation capital budget should support those modes. This creates a fair, transparent basis for investing in transportation, fixing pathway gaps, and building long-awaited links..."

Rather than announcing another $100million over 4 years, who thinks providing a % based on usage is a better, less controversial and secure way to fund ongoing active transportation networks/bike lanes/MUPs?

Special projects like neighbourhood renewals, I would advocate, would be funded separately in addition to regular transportation funding.

This could be regarded as still a conservative investment in active transportation since it has been largely underinvested in and our city goals aim to increase usage which one could argue supports a bit higher level of investment to better meet those targets.
Click to expand...
This is smart in principle, but the relative costs of transportation aren't 1:1 so it doesn't quite make sense.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top