News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.4K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Car-Free Streets

thommyjo said:
Unfortunately the pavers are pretty permanent that they used. So you could definitely still do it, but it’ll look funny. They used the pavers to naturally show the lines and such for the bike lane vs car lane. Again, not impossible to switch them still, would just look messier. Sucks this wasn’t thought of more beforehand.

102ave from 109st to Churchill makes for a great pedestrian zone in the scope of DT. But it’ll take a long time for it to really get there. I’m torn because if you let cars back, it’s hard to remove later. And if you don’t declare it a pedestrian street, it won’t see developments towards that. But 104st makes way more sense at this point to focus on.
Click to expand...
Yup, 104 St. has a much better chance at being a successful pedestrian street than 102 Ave ever will (i.e. existing street-oriented businesses, heritage architecture, past closures for street markets, etc.).

Open 102 Ave to traffic (the LRT tracks, separated bike lanes and new sidewalks won't go away), and you'll have a truly multi-modal transportation route downtown. Keeping vehicles out of the one-way travel lane won't magically turn it into an urban paradise and our efforts should be focused on the areas that are nearly there (i.e. 104 St).
 
Avenuer said:
Yup, 104 St. has a much better chance at being a successful pedestrian street than 102 Ave ever will (i.e. existing street-oriented businesses, heritage architecture, past closures for street markets, etc.).

Open 102 Ave to traffic (the LRT tracks, separated bike lanes and new sidewalks won't go away), and you'll have a truly multi-modal transportation route downtown. Keeping vehicles out of the one-way travel lane won't magically turn it into an urban paradise and our efforts should be focused on the areas that are nearly there (i.e. 104 St).
Click to expand...

Might be safer to not have that single lane of traffic though with how busy the other modes are and will be at different points along 102 Ave once lrt gets going.
 
Avenuer said:
Yup, 104 St. has a much better chance at being a successful pedestrian street than 102 Ave ever will
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true -- predicting the future is not an easy game.
Avenuer said:
Keeping vehicles out of the one-way travel lane won't magically turn it into an urban paradise and our efforts should be focused on the areas that are nearly there (i.e. 104 St)
Click to expand...
We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
 
archited said:
We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Click to expand...
You'd think. The train was on the horn this morning barely missing a pedestrian that decided to cut in front with their headphones on.
 
FpIaNYGaUAAo01A

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626391242123939841
 
IanO said:
FpIaNYGaUAAo01A

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626391242123939841
Click to expand...

I see from the tweets there's a posting about Kalen Anderson, the one who wrote that letter above from UDI, and that she was a financial donor to the "Freedom Convoy" this past year.

Regardless, I still have not heard any good argument why this short stretch of road needs to be kept open for cars.
The default here should be active transportation (pedestrians, bikes, scooters, public transit), then emergency vehicles, and lastly personal vehicles.
Those advocating that vehicles are needed here, please make your case? What am I missing?
 
TAS said:
I see from the tweets there's a posting about Kalen Anderson, the one who wrote that letter above from UDI, and that she was a financial donor to the "Freedom Convoy" this past year.

Regardless, I still have not heard any good argument why this short stretch of road needs to be kept open for cars.
The default here should be active transportation (pedestrians, bikes, scooters, public transit), then emergency vehicles, and lastly personal vehicles.
Those advocating that vehicles are needed here, please make your case? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

**Not fully in favour to open it, just responding to the question **
The city report proposes a year-long trial of keeping 102 Ave closed, but given the current state of downtown, it may be better to open the road to cars as a way to activate the area. There is no LRT (just yet) or CRUs facing 102 Ave to do so. However, since the closure, there has been an increase in the number of homeless people taking over 102 Ave, making it less safe to use.
 
The LRT should have been opened in September when the trial run of 102 Ave was approved. The fact that the opening of the LRT keeps getting delayed for Lord-knows how long means that a decision to end the trial run is too soon. The trial run needs to continue until we have a working LRT line in place for at least one full summer. Unfortunately the city administrators are too short-sighted and lack vision. I hope city council is better than that.
 
davcocom said:
**Not fully in favour to open it, just responding to the question **
The city report proposes a year-long trial of keeping 102 Ave closed, but given the current state of downtown, it may be better to open the road to cars as a way to activate the area. There is no LRT (just yet) or CRUs facing 102 Ave to do so. However, since the closure, there has been an increase in the number of homeless people taking over 102 Ave, making it less safe to use.
Click to expand...
I ride 102 Ave almost everyday to work. The homeless have not taken over 102 Ave. The homeless might congregate near shelter and services along 102 Ave such as ECC and the library. Until recently, the biggest congregation of homeless and contraband dealers was along 101 Street next to ECC- a car focused street....
 
Romanov said:
I ride 102 Ave almost everyday to work. The homeless have not taken over 102 Ave. The homeless might congregate near shelter and services along 102 Ave such as ECC and the library. Until recently, the biggest congregation of homeless and contraband dealers was along 101 Street next to ECC- a car focused street....
Click to expand...
Such an ambiguous type of statement from admin.
"Since the closure there has been an increase in the number of homeless people taking over, making it less safe to use."

Taking over? Really? This is not 96 street. I have not seen any encampment here.
And what kind of an increase of homeless are we talking about? How many? Does that mean there is a decrease in other areas?
 
Y'all know my position on this one and even being a pedestrian first, I applaud this option FOR NOW.

Use it 'as intended/designed' and see how a greater variety of uses does based on the years of consultation.

Take opportunities to activity key nodes at 103st, 99-101 just off of the Ave and educate folks on how there are options for folks on how to move about.

Throughout the year do some enhanced activation, maybe even some temporary closures, akin to areas on 124st, Old Strath etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top