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 

76th Avenue Renewal

Exploring Options and Tradeoffs - November 2025​

We have reviewed and considered what you shared with us about 76 Avenue, during previous public engagement opportunities. The Project Team can now share design options for 89 Street to 99 Street based on your feedback, including:

  • Driving - measures to slow traffic
  • Walking - sidewalks and crossing improvements
  • Biking - bike routes and facilities

We want to hear from you!​

  • Review the design options
  • Complete the online survey
    • Available from Tuesday, November 18 to Sunday, December 7
  • Meet the Project Team at a drop-in event
    • Thursday, December 4 between 5:30pm - 8:30pm
    • Ritchie Community League (7727 98 Street NW)
During this stage, we commit to using the priorities we heard during the engagement to inform the design for the project.

This round of public engagement focuses on the west portion from 89 to 99 Street. An update for the east portion from 75 to 89 Street will be provided in 2026.

Please note, the road and pathway closures related to the Mill Creek Trestle Bridge and 76 Avenue Culvert Replacement are not part of this project. More information about that work can be found on the project web page.
 
Maybe some landscaping or trees can be added to the curb extensions.

Screenshot_20251119_124930_Gmail.jpg



On the northside of street where the sidewalk/bike lane would be, I take it residents would not be required to clear the bike lane, but they would have to do the sidewalk? Where would all the snow go? Previously when clearing the road on 76Ave, it gets pushed onto 1/3 of the sidewalk.
 
As much as I like the
TAS said:
On the northside of street where the sidewalk/bike lane would be, I take it residents would not be required to clear the bike lane, but they would have to do the sidewalk? Where would all the snow go? Previously when clearing the road on 76Ave, it gets pushed onto 1/3 of the sidewalk.
Click to expand...
Can anyone who rode frequently in the winter on the bike lanes along 106 St across from Mount Pleasant Cemetery offer any insights on this? The configuration is similar.

With regard to a shared-use path, if it's anything like the one through Malmo Plains along 115 St, those were city-maintained. Despite this, one or two houses would consistently clear their portion, which was much appreciated, but the other houses would not even touch theirs until the city clearing equipment came within 2 days (of course, it usually snowed the next day, so rinse and repeat).
 
How frustrating that the city finally commits to complete cycling infrastructure like they did for the 132ave project and then that design type isn't replicated anywhere else. Is there any reason that 76ave couldnt be reconfigured to the standard of 132ave for this stretch? The fact that there are designs here proposed that would force cyclists to cross from the south to north side of the ave to continue riding just shows how the design of these projects is out of touch from the realities of what's needed to make cycling enjoyable. Purple would force cyclists to cross the road just to continue moving in the same direction, yellow has a shared use path the entire way (cause what could possibly go wrong with having users of 3km/h - 30km/h all sharing the same 2m wide strip of asphalt) and even green has the 2 way bike lane converting to a SUP path by the ravine. But thank goodness that all the houses along this stretch that have 4 parking spots per property will still get publicly subsidized street parking.

This project really showcases that despite what the cities says about wanting to make alternative modes of transport more attractive, they really will only do the least they can to impact driving and then shoe-horn in cycling infrastrcuture where it fits. Until we start designing roads starting with walking and cycling infrastructure, we are never going to be a city where driving isnt the predominant transportation method. And this is in Ritchie, a core central neighbourhood that has so much potential to be less car-centric.

I'm guessing as these are the only 3 options proposed its too late for the final result to be anything outside of these. Maybe when the road is renewed again in 2060 we might get some equitable infrastructure that time around.
 
cloney said:
How frustrating that the city finally commits to complete cycling infrastructure like they did for the 132ave project and then that design type isn't replicated anywhere else. Is there any reason that 76ave couldnt be reconfigured to the standard of 132ave for this stretch? The fact that there are designs here proposed that would force cyclists to cross from the south to north side of the ave to continue riding just shows how the design of these projects is out of touch from the realities of what's needed to make cycling enjoyable. Purple would force cyclists to cross the road just to continue moving in the same direction, yellow has a shared use path the entire way (cause what could possibly go wrong with having users of 3km/h - 30km/h all sharing the same 2m wide strip of asphalt) and even green has the 2 way bike lane converting to a SUP path by the ravine. But thank goodness that all the houses along this stretch that have 4 parking spots per property will still get publicly subsidized street parking.

This project really showcases that despite what the cities says about wanting to make alternative modes of transport more attractive, they really will only do the least they can to impact driving and then shoe-horn in cycling infrastrcuture where it fits. Until we start designing roads starting with walking and cycling infrastructure, we are never going to be a city where driving isnt the predominant transportation method. And this is in Ritchie, a core central neighbourhood that has so much potential to be less car-centric.

I'm guessing as these are the only 3 options proposed its too late for the final result to be anything outside of these. Maybe when the road is renewed again in 2060 we might get some equitable infrastructure that time around.
Click to expand...

In the proposals it does say tree-lined boulevards (like 132 Ave) may still be considered, but that could mean the removal of street parking on both sides of the street. Even 132Ave, which had a lot more real estate to work with, retained parking on both sides of the street - so they are not quite equal in comparison. Still, I think it's worth sharing your preference either online or at the open house. I'm sure others share it. I would have liked to see that option presented with a render.
 
Last edited:
TAS said:
In the proposals it does say tree-lined boulevards (like 132 Ave) may still be considered, but that could mean the removal of street parking on both sides of the street. Even 132Ave, which had a lot more real estate to work with, retained parking on both sides of the street - so they are not quite equal in comparison. Still, I think it's worth sharing your preference either online or at the open house. I'm sure others share it. I would have liked to see that option presented with a render.
Click to expand...
The fact that tree line boulevards are only something that “may be considered” while every design option has room for street parking all the way down is what I’m getting at here. For the space here, we could have a configuration: of 2-way car traffic, asphalt bike paths on both sides, trees in between the bikes and cars, an sidewalks between bikes and houses, but the city decided a laughably small amount of street parking is a better use of space. And then once again, the biking options will force cyclists to suffer more inconvenience to travel through the same corridor compared to car traffic. Nvm the fact this would be the ONLY E/W biking connection in this area of the city, but apparently equal (not even bike-dominant) land use for just 1 section of 1 road is still too much to ask.

I will for sure be attending the open house, should comments be sent anywhere else besides the survey too? This is going to turn into an absolute blunder of a missed opportunity to move the city forward.
 
cloney said:
The fact that tree line boulevards are only something that “may be considered” while every design option has room for street parking all the way down is what I’m getting at here. For the space here, we could have a configuration: of 2-way car traffic, asphalt bike paths on both sides, trees in between the bikes and cars, an sidewalks between bikes and houses, but the city decided a laughably small amount of street parking is a better use of space. And then once again, the biking options will force cyclists to suffer more inconvenience to travel through the same corridor compared to car traffic. Nvm the fact this would be the ONLY E/W biking connection in this area of the city, but apparently equal (not even bike-dominant) land use for just 1 section of 1 road is still too much to ask.

I will for sure be attending the open house, should comments be sent anywhere else besides the survey too? This is going to turn into an absolute blunder of a missed opportunity to move the city forward.
Click to expand...

Michael.Janz@edmonton.ca
and Ashley.Salvador@edmonton.ca

Could also send to Ritchie Community League inquiries@ritchie-league.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top