News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.8K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.9K     0 

Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton

I am very happy with these designs. I really think lessons have been learned from 105 Ave. In sections where dedicated bike lanes are objectionable to some, the MUPs make a lot of sense. I prefer the MUPs to "bikeways" (sharrows) pretty much every time.

I really like the willingness to calm traffic with modal filters in the form of parks like at 112st, I do not like the zig-zag traffic calming at all, though.

Well done to the designers, this is up there with the 132st renewal.
I still don't see a 100 Ave MUP extension from west of 110 St to 116 St.
I think that's still coming. Curious to see what they have planned for that.

The railtown MUP and 100 Ave bike lane intersection can definitely be improved, too. Having recently used this a few times, while it's fairly easy to connect to it heading north from the High Level bridge (then east), the connection coming west then eventually south again is a bit sketchy.
I still don't see a 100 Ave MUP extension from west of 110 St to 116 St.
Phase 2 of this neighbourhood plan will be coming a bit later this year and focusing on the important east/west routes and pedestrian areas like 100 Ave and 103 Ave.

If you're going to be bold and prioritize pedestrians, cyclists and other active modes, this is the neighbourhood to do it.
One SUP that's not on Google Maps yet is the one along the south Yellowhead retaining wall, from 89 St to 81 St. Not sure if it extends further east but 81 St is a designated bikeway and 89 St will tie in to the new 124 Ave bike path heading west to Blatchford Gate.

My only quibble about that is that not only are there no plans currently to connect 81 St and 125 Ave east to 66 St for that south of Yellowhead SUP, they are going to remove the SUP width sidewalk along the southside of Yellowhead from Fort Road to 66 St to turn it into a shoulder. Yes one could use 119 Ave instead but it's a bit of a missed opportunity given that infrastructure already exists for over 85% of that route.

The south of Yellowhead SUP from 66 St to 50 St is pretty amazing btw, love that it's elevated on the berm above everything, it just doesn't tie into anything at 66 St yet. It will tie into the 66 St SUP north when the new interchange is built, and to the new 65 St bikeway south slated for 2026.

Finally had a chance to look through the Wihkwentowin plans. Love it so far. Especially closing the entire street next to Paul Kane although does it all need to be green space? Maybe a basketball court that could be used as a little popup farmers market weekend mornings. I know there's already several playgrounds 3-6 blocks east but why not another little playground for the little ones? Or a splashpad, the little water feature heading into the pond was very popular with the little kids. We want to attract more familes into Wihkwentowin, there's no better way to solidify the family friendliness.

Looking forward to a plan for the 100 Ave bike lane extension. Maybe permanent SUP/bike lanes down Victoria Park Rd.
In addition to the upgrade to a MUP on 23 Ave between 119 St and 111 St, it appears that a sidewalk will be constructed along the west side of 111 Street between Saddleback Road and 40 Ave this year, which will fill in another missing link: I wish it could be a MUP, though (I suspect we will see bikes using it anyway to not have to cross the LRT tracks).

Also on the map for planned sidewalk construction this year is Calgary Trail from 31 Ave to G.A. MacDonald Ave as well as 61 Ave between 109 and 113 St.
This is on 142nd Street just south of 102 Ave. New sidewalk poured right to the edge of this hazard. And it's just left and still lights up at night. Stuff like this shows that either planners don't walk sites or the system is too rigid to fix or worse no one cares. One thing is obvious, none of the people involved high up are in wheelchairs or mobility impaired. This type of planning greys my hair prematurely.

A thought... are far-side traffic signals are mandated due to bylaw or provincial law? I feel like near-side signals (eg. at the stop line) similar to the Dutch intersection in Canmore would help certain intersections along the separated bike infrastructure downtown as well as along busy multiuse paths in making sure vehicles don't block crosswalks or make prohibited right turns on red lights.

From a recent ride down 100 Ave separated lane I think I saw at least 3 illegal right turns on red just going a few blocks in one direction....very frustrating when these dangerous infractions aren't enforced.