News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 11K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.8K     0 

Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton

soupcrate said:
These are the near term priority routes, with a total retrofit implementation cost of 20 million. Honestly, this is pretty damn good. Getting that connection on 97 St would be a game changer.
View attachment 378514
Click to expand...
As a resident of West central, im very bullish on this part of the city, but we badly need a bike network and the LRT asap. With the majority of sprawl growth happening in the SW and W, thatll attract people to west central areas to stay close to friends rather than living farther east. I suspect we'll see more development and infill on the west than the east over the next decade because of this factor.

The mall is also our largest employment center outside of DT and UofA i believe, right? Might even be more than UofA. So connecting the west side to the mall is essential. Sadly the west also has more wealthy nimbys to deal with, so we'll see how they respond... (glenora, Crestwood, Parkview, Rio terrace
 
thommyjo said:
"It's badly done for both bikes and cars, no question," Cartmell said. "We gotta do better than that."

What? What part of downtown is bad for cars or bikes???? 102ave? 100ave?
Click to expand...

Vehicle traffic is slower along 100Ave and its adjacent streets for sure after the bike lanes went in. Although that was pre-pandemic. Lighter traffic now so times are likley faster again.

But if we are looking to reduce car trips, which environmentally is recommended, you want to speed up times for active and public transportation modes.

That's the premise behind Copenhagen's bike plan, at least at first. Curb the behaviour you don't want, driving, by making it less convenient than the behaviour you do want, active and public transportation.

Making driving more convenient (adding more lanes for example) always has the same result- encourages even more driving to the point things get more congested again. Now you're back where you started with worse environmental footprint and more costs (including providing space for parking) not to mention less healthy people. A friend shared some stats with me, sorry I can't find them, that showed Americans spend more time in their vehicles than they do outside - that was in relation to the negative effect on mental health that has (not to mention physical health).
 
TAS said:
Vehicle traffic is slower along 100Ave and its adjacent streets for sure after the bike lanes went in. Although that was pre-pandemic. Lighter traffic now so times are likley faster again.

But if we are looking to reduce car trips, which environmentally is recommended, you want to speed up times for active and public transportation modes.

That's the premise behind Copenhagen's bike plan, at least at first. Curb the behaviour you don't want, driving, by making it less convenient than the behaviour you do want, active and public transportation.

Making driving more convenient (adding more lanes for example) always has the same result- encourages even more driving to the point things get more congested again. Now you're back where you started with worse environmental footprint and more costs (including providing space for parking) not to mention less healthy people. A friend shared some stats with me, sorry I can't find them, that showed Americans spend more time in their vehicles than they do outside - that was in relation to the negative effect on mental health that has (not to mention physical health).
Click to expand...
Our downtown literally has less traffic than any other Canadian city DT... thats why I don't get the concerns from cartmell. And what are bikers not happy with?
 
thommyjo said:
Our downtown literally has less traffic than any other Canadian city DT... thats why I don't get the concerns from cartmell. And what are bikers not happy with?
Click to expand...
As a suburban counciller, I presume he hears a lot of vague and uncommitted griping about bike lanes from constituents. Vague and uncommitted griping coming from him only seems natural.
 
Where are usage numbers for the bike lanes published? I see in downtown, Oliver, and UofA there is some decent usage, but are these bike lanes being used in other parts of the city? I'm probably biased and think these are largely niche projects that are barely used, so wouldn't mind finding some information that is contrarian to my view.
 
jason403 said:
Where are usage numbers for the bike lanes published? I see in downtown, Oliver, and UofA there is some decent usage, but are these bike lanes being used in other parts of the city? I'm probably biased and think these are largely niche projects that are barely used, so wouldn't mind finding some information that is contrarian to my view.
Click to expand...
Here you go!
 
jason403 said:
Where are usage numbers for the bike lanes published? I see in downtown, Oliver, and UofA there is some decent usage, but are these bike lanes being used in other parts of the city? I'm probably biased and think these are largely niche projects that are barely used, so wouldn't mind finding some information that is contrarian to my view.
Click to expand...
I mean...DT, oliver, UofA is basically the only bike infrastructure we have outside of shared use paths and the river valley haha. And they will be "niche" for a few more years, but biking is having a global heyday and we are still in the first 5 years of out bike network being built (with half of that time being covid/WFH). As downtown returns, offices reopen, universities get back to normal, etc, we'll see a big uptick. Even just the culture amongst young people. There's a desire to see real action on climate change/pollution. Bike technology is also improving, which I think will be key for edmonton with our seasonal challenges. A few big books, ted talks, and youtube channels have taken off the past few years, influencing millions. Cities across europe are straight up banning cars for city centres, which will build interest/awareness in NA, and as people travel, study abroad, work in other countries they will experience the beauty of car-lite/car-free cities/areas.

Then unique to edmonton, housing will go up+carbon tax, making young people more budget conscious than our province has had to be in the past. Our infill projects will attract young people to aging/mature areas that actually have bike infrastructure being built. So instead of lewis estates, terwillegar, meadows being where 20-35 year olds buy, more will be in ritchie, highlands, mcqueen, west jasper, strathcona. And then our downtown/core is just building up residentially. Thousands more living DT will 1) make driving horrible if they all try to drive, 2) make bike shops, bike parking, bike culture thrive as critical mass grows, 3) have the social effect of people doing what their friends do. Similar to sports like pickleball, climbing, spikeball, etc that have boomed in recent years, biking has a social effect I believe. 9 of my friends bought bikes last year because my wife and I bought centrally and started inviting friends to hit up parks and patios with us by bike. Then lastly, our transit improving will be big. Bikes pair well with transit. Transit can be for longer trips, bikes for shorter. Or transit on bad weather days, bike on nicer. But most of our city hasn't been well served. Once all the valley line opens, I bet we see a lot more people using bikes in tandem with transit.

I doubt we hit 30-40% biking ever in Edmonton, but I see no reason for 10-15% of trips not being by bike in the next decade or 2.
 
jason403 said:
Where are usage numbers for the bike lanes published? I see in downtown, Oliver, and UofA there is some decent usage, but are these bike lanes being used in other parts of the city? I'm probably biased and think these are largely niche projects that are barely used, so wouldn't mind finding some information that is contrarian to my view.
Click to expand...
A fair thought at this point. IIRC, modal share of biking, according to CoE numbers is only around 1-2%. the link @CplKlinger shared is a great resource, (although i'm sure it's missing a bunch of counters, I know i've come across counters in the suburbs, but the map only shows them near the core; idk) and we know the counters don't catch most traffic, even on the lanes they're on, due to spacing. We don't catch any of the traffic in the Valley and ravines, which is where most riding happens recreationally (as well as a surprising amount of commuting, for those of us lucky enough to have the time in our day) nor do we have active counters on any of the SUPs in the suburbs. those are probably quiet, but they definitely see use and would fill out these usage numbers.
One number i've seen mentioned in documents attempting to account for this large blind-spot in the data estimates 50,000 bike trips a day in the summer. All-in. kids riding SUPs for fun, recreational riding, biking to store because it's sunny instead of driving etc.
right now it is kinda niche to bike. but it's doable, and i think there's more people riding out there than people think/see. expanding and improving our network will make riding more accessible, pleasant, and viable for people for any/all trips. In my eyes, it's a bit of a 'build it, and many more will come' thing.

I'll leave this here too. haven't seen the original source, so idk how credible this is, but I do agree that we actually have some good riding here in the city, at least when there's no snow!
https://twitter.com/x/status/1490122671270424577
 
cliffapotamus said:
A fair thought at this point. IIRC, modal share of biking, according to CoE numbers is only around 1-2%. the link @CplKlinger shared is a great resource, (although i'm sure it's missing a bunch of counters, I know i've come across counters in the suburbs, but the map only shows them near the core; idk) and we know the counters don't catch most traffic, even on the lanes they're on, due to spacing. We don't catch any of the traffic in the Valley and ravines, which is where most riding happens recreationally (as well as a surprising amount of commuting, for those of us lucky enough to have the time in our day) nor do we have active counters on any of the SUPs in the suburbs. those are probably quiet, but they definitely see use and would fill out these usage numbers.
One number i've seen mentioned in documents attempting to account for this large blind-spot in the data estimates 50,000 bike trips a day in the summer. All-in. kids riding SUPs for fun, recreational riding, biking to store because it's sunny instead of driving etc.
right now it is kinda niche to bike. but it's doable, and i think there's more people riding out there than people think/see. expanding and improving our network will make riding more accessible, pleasant, and viable for people for any/all trips. In my eyes, it's a bit of a 'build it, and many more will come' thing.

I'll leave this here too. haven't seen the original source, so idk how credible this is, but I do agree that we actually have some good riding here in the city, at least when there's no snow!
https://twitter.com/x/status/1490122671270424577
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm interested on how stats will change with redevelopment in core areas and 15 minute communities.

We are a long way from bikes being a primary source, but I wonder if we can see a lot more people shift a certain percentage of rides. I started biking this past year and now use it for most errands, shopping, coffee, seeing friends centrally, etc. Car still needed for friends outside the henday and long trips. But 50% at least have become bike trips.

So if we see that sort of progress, that'll be huge. High school and uni students feels like massive potential. Downtown workers and residents of the core as well.
 
cliffapotamus said:
A fair thought at this point. IIRC, modal share of biking, according to CoE numbers is only around 1-2%.
Click to expand...
Just for context, even Montreal only has 3.6 percent cycling mode share. But top line numbers like that hide a lot. There are many central neighborhoods that have recieved investment into solid bike infrastructure that have like 5-20%. That seems like a decent success already, and that was back in 2016.

I imagine there are some neighborhoods like that in Edmonton (Strathcona, Garneau, maybe Oliver) where mode share is already 5-10%.
 
City council is discussing the bike plan implementation document right now. Livestream/recording link.

Some things of note (I'll be editing this as the session continues):
  • Ashley Salvador is supportive, asked if it's possible to accelerate the 10-15 year timeline. McCabe says that Council can choose to fund a more aggressive implementation with the next budget cycle.
  • Anne Stevenson is supportive, asked if developer contributions for new buildings in the Oliver area could be used for adding to the bike network. Oliver community league representative was receptive to this idea but admitted he wasn't familiar with the relevant bylaws.
  • Principe is not supportive, relays a message from her constituents: "Bike lanes are not a priority". She brings up 132 Ave as an example, asks if we can do shared use paths (SUPs) instead of a bike lane. Admin gives a non answer (understandbly).
  • Principe asks if administration is considered that adding bike lanes and lowering speeds on collectors will cause cut through traffic on neighborhood roads. McCabe says the city does traffic modelling.
  • Principe asks about who's responsible for bike parking. Admin says it will be a shared responsibility, some bike parking in zoning.
  • Paquette is supportive. He says SUPs aren't used only by bikes: seniors, strollers, scooters etc. He says trips taken have increased 30% year over year.
  • Admin says that bike implementation plan includes new strategies for measurement and data collection.
  • Knack is supportive, asks if it's possible to add a SUP along the entire length of the Valley Line West. Adam Laughlin says that it would be challenging due to space constraints. Knack asks if they could replace sidewalks, saying it would probably be more expensive to add in a brand new set of infrastructure rather than piggy backing on an existing project. Laughlin says that this would be really difficult at this point.
  • Janz is supportive, asks how the total $200M Bike Plan cost compares to total city spending on roadways. Admin says over last 2 budget cycles $2.4 billion was directly put into road infrastructure vs $19 million directly for bikes (but excludes things like neighbourhood renewal).
  • Janz asks how to integrate intermodal and end of trip facilities (combat theft).
  • Stevenson asks if bike lanes and high frequency transit on 97st is compatible. Admin says that the city considers this, weighs the feasiblity of the "desire path" vs offset paths.
  • Stevenson asks what would be required to keep the mobility lanes on Victoria park road. Admin says it plans to bring it back to the configuration from this last summer.
  • Rice asks how what the avg cost/km of bike lane vs roadway compares. Admin says it varies by type of pathway, but says they will follow up.
  • Rice says capital expenditure dollars should be balanced against % population usage.
  • Rice asks if it's possible to reflect on the bike plan given the impacts of Covid. Admin says covid has increased usage of act of transportation.
  • Admin says that the cost of building bike lane is proportional to it's footprint on the roadway.
SupportiveOpposed
  • Salvador
  • Stevenson
  • Knack
  • Janz (maybe needs his own category)
  • Principe
  • Rice
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top