News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 7.8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton

fromyeg said:
That’s amazing. Thanks for the share!

If Bergen can build that, then surely we can build a bicycle underpass under the tracks at 76th Ave.
Click to expand...

I'd be worried about homelessness and criminal activity in such an underpass.
In any case, I want a true MUP (including vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians) either at-grade across 76 Ave or an overpass over the CP rail yard.
I want 76 Ave to be an alternative corridor to Whyte Ave. Putting in just a bicycle path will not cut it.
 
Gronk! said:
I'd be worried about homelessness and criminal activity in such an underpass.
In any case, I want a true MUP (including vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians) either at-grade across 76 Ave or an overpass over the CP rail yard.
I want 76 Ave to be an alternative corridor to Whyte Ave. Putting in just a bicycle path will not cut it.
Click to expand...
How far down 76 Ave could such a corridor be feasible? When you start heading east of Ritchie Market that road really narrows up with homes on each side of 76 ave. Will be interesting to see a plan that accommodates vehicles, transit, cyclists and pedestrians along with light fixtures, trees/planters etc. Or is there such a proposal out there?

For context, this section of 76 Ave is the same width as 102 Ave through Oliver that has a single lane of traffic in one direction, parking on one side, and a bike lane, with sidewalks.
How is transit in each direction going to fit here?

Screenshot_20230703-214735_Maps.jpg
 
Last edited:
TAS said:
I'm pretty excited to be checking out urbanism and bike infrastructure in Norway this September.

Check out this 90 second video of what Bergen, Norway (the country's second largest city after Oslo, and located on the west coast) has recently completed. Pretty impressive.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675575434967220225
Click to expand...
It is important to note that the tunnel goes through a mountain. The only thing we have is the river valley which already has the high level bridge. Best comparable that would work for Edmonton is to build elevated bicycle paths throughout the city that go in ways the car cannot.
 
itom987 said:
It is important to note that the tunnel goes through a mountain. The only thing we have is the river valley which already has the high level bridge. Best comparable that would work for Edmonton is to build elevated bicycle paths throughout the city that go in ways the car cannot.
Click to expand...

It's important to note I'm just sharing the video to highlight some impressive infrastructure that cities are building that is unique to their landscapes and weather in an effort to reduce vehicle traffic and the financial and environmental costs of such traffic. By sharing this I'm not advocating Edmonton needs to build a tunnel somewhere it isn't needed.
 
TAS said:
When you start heading east of Ritchie Market that road really narrows up with homes on each side of 76 ave
Click to expand...
It could be a bi-directional single lane shuttle transit train for the narrowest parts (it would have to use magnemotion LSM propulsion to be effective, safe, and operationally economical) or it could be elevated for the entire run from Sherwood Park to UofA. That coupled with uni-directional bike lane and sidewalk on each boulevard protected by the existing line of trees and then two-lane auto access on the existing street.
 
Would closing down river valley road to be one way or just removing it completely apart from royal Glendora access ever be considered? I know it's useful for vehicle commuters, but could alternative routes routes be explored? When I think of the potential Touch the Water project, I feel there is not enough room from the existing MUP to the river to truly do the project justice. I think of the separation that the seawall has from roads and how special that amount of space and quiet can be. Even Calgary's Riverwalk southbank has significant separation from traffic.
 
So what to do about right turns on red lights.

Saw as close as you can get, near miss this morning with someone on a bike and a person driving.

Person on bike was headed east on 100 Ave bike lane about to go through 109 st intersection. Driver of SUV was supposed to be stopped at 109 st (southbound lane) and had a no right turn on red but proceeded to do so anyway and rather quickly. The bike basically hit the front end of the vehicle stopping just in time.

The driver, who had stopped momentarily right in front of the bike lane as they then saw the bike, then just continued right turn and headed west on 100 Ave.

The bike rider was quite upset - I think she was more shaken up more than anything. She said she was OK and continued on.

Most intersections don't have a no right turn on red light so people just don't think that's a thing. In some cases they may just try to ignore it.

But what to do. More awareness campaigns? Make all intersections no right on red for consistency? Or more periodic enforcement at certain intersections that seem to be problems- this one regularly has people turn right on no red, but not the majority. But many nonetheless.
 
An
TAS said:
So what to do about right turns on red lights.

Saw as close as you can get, near miss this morning with someone on a bike and a person driving.

Person on bike was headed east on 100 Ave bike lane about to go through 109 st intersection. Driver of SUV was supposed to be stopped at 109 st (southbound lane) and had a no right turn on red but proceeded to do so anyway and rather quickly. The bike basically hit the front end of the vehicle stopping just in time.

The driver, who had stopped momentarily right in front of the bike lane as they then saw the bike, then just continued right turn and headed west on 100 Ave.

The bike rider was quite upset - I think she was more shaken up more than anything. She said she was OK and continued on.

Most intersections don't have a no right turn on red light so people just don't think that's a thing. In some cases they may just try to ignore it.

But what to do. More awareness campaigns? Make all intersections no right on red for consistency? Or more periodic enforcement at certain intersections that seem to be problems- this one regularly has people turn right on no red, but not the majority. But many nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Any kind of periodic enforcement would probably help at least a bit.
As it stands, I've never seen EPS enforcing any driving rules except for speed. Even then it's usually just the CoE trucks.
We need at least periodic enforcement of a whole number of traffic laws that aren't being enforced in any meaningful way. Including right on red where disallowed.
A rule without at least some enforcement effectively doesn't exist.

I would also suggest:
Changing lanes as they make a turn (not turning into the nearest lane).
Stopping for flashing amber crosswalks.
Incorrect merging onto highways, not matching speed.
Right turns on red specifically around the new LRT.
Distracted driving/use of a cell phone while driving.
Stopping on crosswalks.

Anything I'm missing here?

While I'm ranting I'd also like some bare minimum vehicle inspections please. Brakes and tires if nothing else.
 
TAS said:
So what to do about right turns on red lights.

Saw as close as you can get, near miss this morning with someone on a bike and a person driving.

Person on bike was headed east on 100 Ave bike lane about to go through 109 st intersection. Driver of SUV was supposed to be stopped at 109 st (southbound lane) and had a no right turn on red but proceeded to do so anyway and rather quickly. The bike basically hit the front end of the vehicle stopping just in time.

The driver, who had stopped momentarily right in front of the bike lane as they then saw the bike, then just continued right turn and headed west on 100 Ave.

The bike rider was quite upset - I think she was more shaken up more than anything. She said she was OK and continued on.

Most intersections don't have a no right turn on red light so people just don't think that's a thing. In some cases they may just try to ignore it.

But what to do. More awareness campaigns? Make all intersections no right on red for consistency? Or more periodic enforcement at certain intersections that seem to be problems- this one regularly has people turn right on no red, but not the majority. But many nonetheless.
Click to expand...
red light cameras would be nice. 124st at 102ave is horrible for right turns on red these days.

Also, signage could be better. Sometimes the sign is on the verticals pole, not even near the lights drivers would naturally look at. Maybe something in the bike lane/crosswalk that faces cars saying no right on red could help too?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top