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
 9.4K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton

thommyjo said:
Still another week to complete the survey for Wîhkwêntôwin renewal if anyone is interested! Surprisingly, there's still some anti bike laners, even in this area haha. So the supporting voices do matter! Lost parking is likely the biggest pushback being received.

yegbike.info

Wîhkwêntôwin ᐄᐧᐦᑫᐧᐣᑑᐃᐧᐣ (Oliver) Neighbourhood Renewal and Why it Matters

Discover the importance of the Wîhkwêntôwin Neighbourhood Renewal project and how it aligns with Edmonton's goals for a sustainable and bike-friendly city. Explore ways to improve designs for a safer and more connected community.
yegbike.info
Click to expand...

I understand apartment building residents in complexes like the David Thompson that were built with zero guest parking wanting to retain as much street parking in the neighbourhood as possible. Building safe, viable alternatives to driving though requires some new infrastructure so in many cases the option is removing some parking because roads can't get wider in many areas.

In terms of parking, given that Edmonton has grown by 100,000 people in 2022-23 and during that same time added more than 60,000 cars, something has to give. If we add more parking to accommodate the 10s of thousands of cars added to our roadway every year, that's a lot of space/land in our cities for parked vehicles. Again, many of our roads can't get any wider - so where are these cars going to park? Do we leave undeveloped sites as is for parking and perhaps even take down more buildings for more parking? I sure hope not. Look what that has done to our downtown.

Older neighbouroods, despite having lower populations than previous decades, are experiencing more parking congestion now than ever before because even though fewer residents live in these neighbourhoods, more of the people have more vehicles. And so the thought of any more density terrifies them, because even though populations in their neighbouroods are down, they are deeply concerned about parking in front of their house for themselves and visitors.

Reducing street space used for parking with active transportation infastructure seems counterintuitive and a major threat to most because it's taking away that space, but what other way is there to provide viable, safe alternatives to driving? If we keep putting all our eggs into driving and parking infrastructure, many areas of this city are going to run out of space as our population and vehicle ownership grows. Then what?
 
Last edited:
TAS said:
I understand apartment building residents in complexes like the David Thompson that were built with zero guest parking wanting to retain as much street parking in the neighbourhood as possible. Building safe, viable alternatives to driving though requires some new infrastructure so in many cases the option is removing some parking because roads can't get wider in many areas.

In terms of parking, given that Edmonton has grown by 100,000 people in 2022-23 and during that same time added more than 60,000 cars, something has to give. If we add more parking to accommodate the 10s of thousands of cars added to our roadway every year, that's a lot of space/land in our cities for parked vehicles. Again, many of our roads can't get any wider - so where are these cars going to park? Do we leave undeveloped sites as is for parking and perhaps even take down more buildings for more parking? I sure hope not. Look what that has done to our downtown.

Older neighbouroods, despite having lower populations than previous decades, are experiencing more parking congestion now than ever before because even though fewer residents live in these neighbourhoods, more of the people have more vehicles. And so the thought of any more density terrifies them, because even though populations in their neighbouroods are down, they are deeply concerned about parking in front of their house for themselves and visitors.

Reducing street space used for parking with active transportation infastructure seems counterintuitive and a major threat to most because it's taking away that space, but what other way is there to provide viable, safe alternatives to driving? If we keep putting all our eggs into driving and parking infrastructure, many areas of this city are going to run out of space as our population and vehicle ownership grows. Then what?
Click to expand...
This is a good post on the complexity that cities find themselves now that we've decided it's probably best practice to retro-fit our cities away from ubiquitous car ownership. It's the fact that if somewhere want to be a real city, one where there's interesting places and connected communities, it's likely not a city full of parking lots (don't we have 275 lots in our downtown core?).

In my experience, it is quite easy to find a (usually free) parking spot downtown if I'm willing to walk a couple blocks. I think we've come to expect parking that is free and available directly in front of the place we want to go but that is not possible within a dense city because those parking spots should be incredibly valuable and therefore have a cost.

But yes, I agree there's going to be growing pains and things need to be done incrementally. It'll be a cultural norms shift for people not to view the car as the only way to get around our city and to not expect ample free parking everywhere they go.
 
Last edited:
Gronk! said:
edmonton.taproot.news

City proposes renewing Wîhkwêntôwin to prioritize pedestrians over cars

As it prepares for neighbourhood renewal in Wîhkwêntôwin, the City of Edmonton wants feedback on its design proposals for new bike infrastructure, traffic-calming measures, and linear parks in place of portions of roads.
edmonton.taproot.news edmonton.taproot.news

City administration has also proposed to close 97 Avenue east of 110 Street to drivers. This closure would cut off one vehicular access point to the High Level Bridge from the neighbourhood, and connect Constable Ezio Faraone Park to the Ribbon of Steel shared-use path. The current design involves two right-turn slip lanes intersecting with the shared-use path.

Coincidentally, Budnick said the Edmonton Bike Coalition was leading a tour through Wîhkwêntôwin earlier this month to discuss the proposal when participants watched a driver hit a cyclist who was crossing the street at that exact spot.

“This is a very busy city park, so (the proposed closure is) a good opportunity to really massively increase safety at common conflict points,” Budnick said.
Click to expand...
This is also the approach to the High Level that seems to lead to the most stuck overly tall vehicles (especially in the peak U-Haul times at the start of fall semester and end of winter semester). 109 street has ample space for warning and a good escape route. I've had to play ground guide on multiple occasions along there to help folks back out of it after their vehicles hit the warning bar above the slip lane before realizing they could go no further. Even from a car brain perspective, that approach just shouldn't exist.
 
dkazzed said:
They started this work, line painting looks done it's just a matter of installing the Street Labs style curbs and barriers. https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/40-Street-Hermitage-Road-Final-Design.pdf

As I am often on this corridor, I am excited to see and use the final product. Even if it's just one big Street Labs corridor for the time being.
Click to expand...
This was so due for that kind of upgrade. I used to often bike to a friend's place up by Clareview along the LRT MUP and cut over to catch the then nascent bike lanes on 40 Street. It was always the classic weirdly overbuilt low-traffic arterial where biking along it invited all kinds of high-speed close passes.

All it needs is a connection west to Belvedere LRT through the west of 50th wasteland.
 
Coprolite said:
This was so due for that kind of upgrade. I used to often bike to a friend's place up by Clareview along the LRT MUP and cut over to catch the then nascent bike lanes on 40 Street. It was always the classic weirdly overbuilt low-traffic arterial where biking along it invited all kinds of high-speed close passes.

All it needs is a connection west to Belvedere LRT through the west of 50th wasteland.
Click to expand...
I would've loved to see this full Toward 40 treatment all the way to 137 Ave. Especially where they have that angle parking for the church.

50 St to Belvedere would be nice. Traffic volume on 130 Ave is low so I'm comfortable with riding it but we're trying to get more casual cyclists. 129 Ave is iffy. Best case scenario is that they connect a MUP to 132 Ave/Fort Road with a dedicated bridge over the train tracks but pipe dream at this point.
 
As part of McCauley Neighbourhood Renewal, new bike lanes freshly poured along 96 street, north of 109 Ave here.
20240728_134734.jpg



Not sure what plan is at the intersections. Will bikes merge onto road through the intersection?

20240728_135543.jpg
20240728_135615.jpg
 
TAS said:
As part of McCauley Neighbourhood Renewal, new bike lanes freshly poured along 96 street, north of 109 Ave here.
View attachment 584152


Not sure what plan is at the intersections. Will bikes merge onto road through the intersection?

View attachment 584150View attachment 584151
Click to expand...
Oh man. I hope not. These sorts of little choices make such a big difference. Might as well not have protected bike lanes if intersections are forced merges. Immediately makes kids, the elderly, and those less confident riding not be able to use it. Basically leaving only those already happy to bike on the road to use it.

And don’t get me started on winter impacts of stuff like this. So dangerous in the winter
 
danimori said:
The design book shows this design. It looks like it will be protected but jut out around the curb extension. View attachment 584176
Click to expand...

Thanks! Good to see.

The city appears to be adding several one-way streets (like on 96 st above) as part of its neighbourhood renewals - Wihkwentowin has a few new ones proposed as well.
 
How many changes in vehicular direction does the city think 96 St needs? 😅

Jasper Ave to 102 Ave - NB
102 Ave to 102a Ave - Two way
102a Ave to 103 Ave - SB
103 Ave to 106 Ave - Two way
106 Ave to 107a Ave - NB (new)
107a Ave to 118 Ave - SB (107a Ave to 111 Ave is new)

I noticed construction in full force in Boyle and McCauley but didn't look into it until now. Glad to see an improvement in cycling facilties.

Boyle and McCauley renewal:

Boyle only:

96 St overview:

Project website:
www.edmonton.ca

Building Great Neighbourhoods - Boyle Street and McCauley | City of Edmonton

Neighbourhood Renewal construction has started in McCauley and Boyle Street.
www.edmonton.ca www.edmonton.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top