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
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton

thommyjo said:
You can’t say you support bike lanes when you’ve said everything your last 5 posts have said. Those are the perfect examples of non support.

“Just ride in traffic”
“There’s already another one 3 blocks north”
“Kids and seniors don’t need bike lanes”
“Don’t take away parki
Click to expand...

thommyjo said:
You can’t say you support bike lanes when you’ve said everything your last 5 posts have said. Those are the perfect examples of non support.

“Just ride in traffic”
“There’s already another one 3 blocks north”
“Kids and seniors don’t need bike lanes”
“Don’t take away parking”
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, are you the authority on this Tommy? I do support bike lanes. Also, I do support parking and cars when warranted. You really need so stop coming off as so entitled.
 
jason403 said:
I love the promenade. Used it a lot to both go for walks, cycle along it, and use a scooter when I lived in Oliver. It is absolutely fantastic, especially after the coffee food truck started setting up at LaMarchand Mansion on weekends. I just believe that it is largely fine as is. The street parking is great for when I go back to visit now, and residents of the neighborhood also appreciate having it around. There is not congestion on the low speed road, and really allows for the maximum amount of people to use the space. If bike lanes didn't take away from street use for cars or parking, then sure, throw it in. There isn't enough space to have it all, hence a choice having to be made. It's just a little sad that roads and parking that people actually use, are being taken away for bike lanes that aren't needed.

And any time someone uses the argument having to point out a an 8 year old and an 80 year old, they have a pretty weak argument. There already is a bike lane on 102 Ave, so I think people should be fine. If not, maybe they should look at some alternative forms of transportation.
Click to expand...
The issue with this line of thinking is that sharing the road with cars as a biker is generally very unpleasant, particularly when you are sandwiched between moving cars and parked cars, even at low speeds. It's not particularly sad to remove parking and some road space from cars since cars basically have the entire city already designed for them. Instead of saying that bikers can just go use the bike lane on 102 Ave, why can't cars just park on another street? There is countless street parking spots and barren parking lots littered across downtown (and the city).

I'm also curious as to what the alternative form of transportation for biking would be? Bikes already are the alternative form of transportation. Is the suggestion that they should just drive? Because then they might end up taking those precious parking spots then and causing congestion.
 
jason403 said:
I'm sorry, are you the authority on this Tommy? I do support bike lanes. Also, I do support parking and cars when warranted. You really need so stop coming off as so entitled.
Click to expand...
Im sorry bro. I'm not trying to be rude, not my intention. But this is really serious to me and I don't think the trade offs are fair. If wanting my wife and kids to not have to bike next to 4000lbs of metal moving 40km/hr makes me entitled, but you wanting 15 parking spaces to remain isn't, I don't know what to say. Just does not seem like the right priorities for the safety and wellbeing of people. And I'm not trying to act like the authority, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are studied and tested ways to do this stuff and your opinions are at odds with a lot of the literature on how to make cities safe for cycling. I'm just trying to advocate for what has worked in other cities.
 
thommyjo said:
The purpose of bike lanes is for the non 20-40s risk taking male cyclist. Or 90+% of the population.
Click to expand...

Well Thommy, I just so happen to be an 18 YEAR OLD able-bodied male cyclist who bikes here regularly, so your argument is disproven!!1 :cool: /s
 
In all seriousness though, option 2 is literally the no-brainer here imo, and both lanes of the bike space should be on the south side of the road physically linked with the promenade. I just can't understand any other option besides #2.
 
Platinum107 said:
In all seriousness though, option 2 is literally the no-brainer here imo, and both lanes of the bike space should be on the south side of the road physically linked with the promenade. I just can't understand any other option besides #2.
Click to expand...
If both lanes are on south side of the road, which turns into the west side when getting to 121 Street, for those continuing north on 121, it won't make for a good transition to get to the east side of the street to continue on.
 
TAS said:
If both lanes are on south side of the road, which turns into the west side when getting to 121 Street, for those continuing north on 121, it won't make for a good transition to get to the east side of the street to continue on.
Click to expand...

I guess that could be an issue. Either way, two-lane road-separated bike paths please.
 
Unrelated to bike lanes, I'm really excited for the completion of this project, supposedly sometime in the spring. It's a pretty well-travelled MUP for cyclists in the SW of the city, or those going to Cameron Heights out to Devon, and the upgrades were loooong overdue.
Screen Shot 2022-04-04 at 6.10.24 PM.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top