|
|
|
Cycling and Active Transportation in Edmonton
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Gronk!
Senior Member
Ashley Salvador for Mayor!
ntt1
Active Member
Out of Towner
Active Member
Urban renewal is money well spent as it encourages others to make improvements to their property.
fromyeg
Active Member
Nice way finding sign.
Also nice that the MUP stretches from Summerside to Downtown.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Update on the Active Transportation Acceleration Project, from the YEG Bike Coalition, who attended some sort of info event for the cycling community:
- "3.9km of routes are complete, however they claim to be on schedule overall, and that these delays won't affect the planned 2025-26 projects
- They are planning 82km of infrastructure across 57 routes by the end of 2026, with the following facility types planned:
- 50% shared pathways
- 31% local street bikeways
- 12% protected on street
- 7% contraflow bike lanes
- The routes for 2025 are selected, and they are in the process of contracting. A total of 23 routes and 23.5km of infrastructure is planned for 2025.
- There are some considerations being addressed for the 2026 routes, like negotiating with affected property owners and in some cases, acquiring property that are underway. The current routes for 2026 total 29.8km of infrastructure across 17 routes.
- We noted that the yearly total routes don't add up to 82km but were not able to get that question in during the allotted time and we've reached out to confirm.
- This project also includes lighting improvements, bike parking, education, snow clearing equipment alongside the above infrastructure.
- There is a prioritized list of missing links across the City, and those which are not addressed by this project will need to be prioritized and funded at a later time.
- They asked the attendees for feedback on 3 representative routes: a local street bikeway, a protected bike lane, and a shared pathway.
- The team also recently hosted a feedback session on the planned route for 107 Avenue, and they assure us that they are taking the provided feedback into consideration and that they heard us loud and clear. We sincerely hope that this is true."
TAS
Senior Member
There's an additional 11km to those 2024-26 proposed routes that are categorized as 'aligning with other capital projects' - that's where extra distance comes from.
Certainly, when this funding was announced in 2022 I think a lot of advocates, myself included, expected we would see a lot more protected bike lanes on roadways. But it has turned out to be largely shared use paths and these routes don't reduce traffic lanes or parking but still provide a safer space for bikes, scooters and mobility devices. It can cause conflict with pedestrians, though.
100% of 2024 routes (17.4km) are shared use path and 50% of 2025 routes (23.5km) are shared. Another 31% are bikes/vehicles sharing the roadway but the city is adding traffic calming measures to those routes such as extended curbs and speed limits will be reduced to 30km.
Overall, folks concerned about this particular active transportation network expansion 'taking away' space from cars or parking have virtually nothing to worry about.
Kosy123
Active Member
Gronk!
Senior Member
You're not wrong. The 100 Ave bike lane extension west of 109 St will be funded through the Wîhkwêntôwin neighborhood renewal project instead of the Active Transportation project.
TAS
Senior Member
And then immediately west of 116 st down Victoria Park Rd funding goes back to active transportation network (2025 planned route).
BrettB
Active Member
mcr
Active Member
Agreed, I think this is a good way to approach it and keep the program a bit safer with potential council/mayoral changes. Focus on "keeping it the same for drivers" in the big project, and as mentioned a few posts ago, focus on more dedicated routes via Neighbourhood Renewal, which seems to have less pushback overall. Balanced approach, and for a lot of bike users, especially casual, shared use are great, while imperfect. I'll take it, that's for sure.
dkazzed
Active Member
96 St and 119 Ave were all part of their respective neighbourhood renewals. What about the central ones -- 83 Ave, 100 Ave, 102 Ave, 106 St, etc.?
People were outraged by bike lanes getting priority clearing over roads. But mention that most of them are shared use paths and most of the shared use path users are pedestrians and people suddenly calm down and it's ok. There's a real bias against cyclists.
People were outraged by bike lanes getting priority clearing over roads. But mention that most of them are shared use paths and most of the shared use path users are pedestrians and people suddenly calm down and it's ok. There's a real bias against cyclists.
TAS
Senior Member
83, 100, 102 and 106st dt for sure we're not part of neighbourhood renewals. They really kick started things to have a basic network within central part of city and downtown with intent to build out from there.
Warehouse Park will provide better infrastructure on 106st dt, the valley line creating new infrastructure on 102 Ave, Wihkwentowin N.Renewal will really enhance the central network (especially the areas branching off from 100 and 102 Aves) as did the Strathcona and Garneau renewals in those respective areas.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Local street bikeways are trash.
Why.
Anyone willing to regularly bike on those…is already willing to ride. A little traffic calming is fine, but doesn’t move the ridership needle. This has been proven time and time again.
Separated/protected is what changes ridership. Paths or lanes.
And for a winter city, as I’ve experienced this week, our bike network becomes almost obsolete in weather like we currently have if there’s not consistent treatment. A 10 block stretch of “local street bikeway” connecting 2 high quality routes is all it takes for me to be forced to drive.
Also, why have we seen 0 protected intersections being built like Ottawa and Vancouver are doing so well??
Why.
Anyone willing to regularly bike on those…is already willing to ride. A little traffic calming is fine, but doesn’t move the ridership needle. This has been proven time and time again.
Separated/protected is what changes ridership. Paths or lanes.
And for a winter city, as I’ve experienced this week, our bike network becomes almost obsolete in weather like we currently have if there’s not consistent treatment. A 10 block stretch of “local street bikeway” connecting 2 high quality routes is all it takes for me to be forced to drive.
Also, why have we seen 0 protected intersections being built like Ottawa and Vancouver are doing so well??