Is this really necessary? The e-scooters didn't really cause many issues last year imo.
You might have a point, IMO. I've never seen it nearly as full as the ones on Victoria Park Road or Calgary Trail. That being said, I'm not riding it during peak hours. From what I see, that location would be well-served by a 4.2m SUP like on River Valley Road.So not arguing bout it it but genuinely asking, is bicycle traffic that busy that the temporary lane is needed again on Sask drive?
Paths for people advocated that the duggan bridge was overbuilt for this reason I believe. Sask drive could probably be 1 lane and a wide MUP from 109 to 105st. The MUP isn’t in awesome condition, but the mobility lane does feel redundant as well.You might have a point, IMO. I've never seen it nearly as full as the ones on Victoria Park Road or Calgary Trail. That being said, I'm not riding it during peak hours. From what I see, that location would be well-served by a 4.2m SUP like on River Valley Road.
I think the reasoning is hat, despite relatively low traffic for the full lane, there's still enough to warrant something better than the hodgepodge of old, narrow sidewalks and boardwalks there currently. parts of that path, particularly East of the New bridge, are only about 6' wide (with very crumbled edges, who knows, maybe it started out wider) and the curb cuts etc are sharp and awkwardly placed. it's essentially an old sidewalk, and undersized for the usage it does see.
I think the car lane closure thing is temporary (like, summers only until the next roadway renewal or whatever); i hope the more permanent solution of widening the SUP is done soon. it would be a better solution fro that spot, IMO.
I'm biased, but yes. It's definitely not as busy as the others, but it gets used quite a bit.So not arguing bout it it but genuinely asking, is bicycle traffic that busy that the temporary lane is needed again on Sask drive?
I was recently thinking something similar - Whyte pedestrianized with bike/bus/taxi/high occupancy vehicle (say 3+) and traffic redirected here. Not sure it would work, but it's nice to dream.I'm biased, but yes. It's definitely not as busy as the others, but it gets used quite a bit.
And I'm not trying to sound snarky, but vehicle traffic here really isn't that high-demand either. I wonder about a future where we might pedestrianize Whyte Ave. Would we want to redirect vehicle traffic here? Maybe, maybe not due to its proximity to the River Valley. Just a thought!
I believe in the power of showing! I'd love to learn to get better at drawing alternatives (or doing our own modelling to challenge city traffic engineers' models).I was recently thinking something similar - Whyte pedestrianized with bike/bus/taxi/high occupancy vehicle (say 3+) and traffic redirected here. Not sure it would work, but it's nice to dream.
It opened the ONE day I decided to WFH this week! Ah. Today, it was still blocked off with signs and trucks. They were doing some more landscaping and touching up the furnishings on the side of the lane. I should have just ridden the "car" lane!102 ave cycling paths is open now from 102 st to 100st. or at least the fence is moved to the LRT tracks.