Keep 102 Ave closed to vehicles

[Edmcowboy11]

Considering the overall design of 102ave I think the discussion to close the ave is a bit over blown. It's not like its being turned back to a 4 lane roadway. I say let it open up and maybe lets worry more about the empty lots and empty CRU's, closed access fronting 102 ave.

 

[Didama]

Considering the overall design of 102ave I think the discussion to close the ave is a bit over blown. It's not like its being turned back to a 4 lane roadway. I say let it open up and maybe lets worry more about the empty lots and empty CRU's, closed access fronting 102 ave.

So let's worry about what we don't have control over. Hoping council will take a more fruitful approach. Anyways, back to LRT discussion ;-)

 

[archited]

I say let it open up and maybe lets worry more about the empty lots and empty CRU's, closed access fronting 102 ave.

You see the problem with that thinking is that the closing of the street to auto traffic (now going to be truly a "blinders-on" throughway) and the vitality of CRUs is inter-related. The through-way auto traffic is certainly not going to support CRUs whereas pedestrian traffic will or at least is more likely too. A single-lane one way traffic route -- who is that useful to other than fire engines and emergency vehicles (and the bicycle lanes can serve that function when the rare occasion arises). The bicycle lanes should have been adjacent to the transit lanes and the sidewalks should have picked up the difference in additional width. This one lane auto traffic is a mindless throw-away solution for a problem that not only doesn't get solved but is exacerbated in the extreme.

 

[TAS]

Again, if we are taking cars off to make it safer, improve parity or cause we don't like cars then say that.

IF we are doing this to achieve something similar to (a good example for us to use) the 16th Street Mall in Denver, then let's get on it and transform podiums into street-facing CRUs and focus on reason for people to actually want to be there.

I will say it - this is about safety and creating more vibrant and comfortable streets (with no car noise), with goal of supporting new businesses better than a single lane of vehicle traffic jetting through will provide.

 

[Platinum107]

I'll still buy one for you to further elaborate on my 'car-centric' position/lifestyle/ideals/devotion.

But is there a good reason to keep it closed? What is the goal here?

-safety?
-space for people?
-urban activation?
-other?

We can still plant seeds and showcase what 'could be' once we have need, density, footfall, desire, suitable frontages... etc. etc. etc.

It's aspirational to have the Avenue a pedestrian wonderland and one we should pursue, but removing a lane 'to give it back to the people' ain't going to do very much at all and if anything create a less desirable solution for more people.

Retain the oneway east for limited traffic, deliveries, access, pickups, taxis etc. Heck, only permit delivery, car share and taxi use if you want.

I don't get it dude, why is it so important about having this one lane open for public car traffic? If emergency/permitted delivery vehicles need it I don't see why they couldn't use it anyway as long as they would be going pretty slow through the area (or just work around it). If I recall correctly you said in post #496 in the Jasper Avenue Redevelopment page that "102 will offer something very different, is MUCH more compact and could be much more urban in looks/feel/offerings and here's hoping it might become that if ECC does its thing along with Manulife. It's not intended to replace Jasper as a Main Street but rather provide another experience". Like you said here, if Jasper ave needs to be the main thoroughfare for cars through downtown and offer that... experience, then why not go all the way in the other direction with 102nd ave and make it the pedestrian main street of downtown? Might not make as much of a difference right now, but once projects like the Manulife and ECC redevelopments happen in some form and especially when VLW opens up further along 102nd it sets a great foundation to then build a walkable district from.

 

[IanO]

Have ability/capacity for it but implement it when appropriate.

 

[The_Cat]

I think a useful designation for 102 Avenue eastbound would be for taxis, buses, emergency and delivery vehicles.

 

[CplKlinger]

Some of these comments have been getting a bit... saucy. Please remember to keep the comments on point(ish) with as few personal remarks as you can manage lol. Thanks all

 

[Platinum107]

Have ability/capacity for it but implement it when appropriate.

I guess we're kinda saying that same thing then, huh?

 

[thommyjo]

I think closing it to cars makes sense. AND I think it will mostly be quiet and barely used for years to come still.

We have lots of other awesome streets that are still pretty quiet. So I dont see the mostly ugly strip of 102ave quickly having a Renaissance. BUT, it still makes sense to close it to cars to prepare it for the future, vs allowing people to get used to having it again to drive on.

Projects like The Lot, The Backyard, Root107, the farmers market, El fresco, etc are all doing really good work and hopefully 102ave could attract similar things if this happens.

But im with Ian that we will need a lot more of the other factors to also improve (LRT completion, residential density DT, improved safety, transformed perception, winter place making, etc).

Lets close it as that can help the progress, but let's not exaggerate the success that will create in the next 5 years.

It'd rather see 104st closed to traffic tbh. And 124st/whyte put on a serious road diet first. Those areas are already primed for pedestrian success. 102ave is still in early days.

 

[Greenspace]

Back in 2012-ish consultation, I asked if the east-bound lane was required. It is meant as a local road for various buildings in the area for deliveries and access.

In 2013 Scott McKeen ask and pushed hard for admin to look at this as a 'shared street'. I still think that is viable today given how it is designed.

I'm in favour of leaving it closed until we know what we want to do with it, I think that might be the prudent thing. I do believe even though it's been closed for 4-5 years, that hasn't always been a positive experience for the area. However keeping a lane of traffic closed I know isn't really the same thing and really looking forward to everything opening up sometime next year.

There's very little happing along that stretch right now. There would be no reason for anyone to hang out there. But I'm hopeful over the next 2-5 years we see some changed (ECC west for example). It would also be helpful to have the 102 Ave area to expand or relocate some programming from 104 Street when the Valley Line West really gets going and causes some disruption in the area.

 

[IanO]

Let's focus on activating Churchill, RHW, 104st and even 96st.

We cannot have everything everywhere for everyone. We don't have the density, desire or resources.

 

[archited]

^^^^ I lived in Ottawa when Sparks Street Mall was a hot topic. The naysayers took the same stance then as you do now for Edmonton. The fact that SSM "appears" to be less popular today than it did in the last century has more to do with the near death of bricks-and-mortar retail and hospitality on a global scale than ANYTHING ELSE. One thing that is quite true for Ottawa that is not true for Edmonton is the lack of highrise apartments and condos in the city's core (Ottawa kept building heights in the core low so as to not overpower (don't know if that is the right word) the parliament buildings). With what Edmonton has planned in the core for the next few years will make a dramatic difference in core population and the time to accommodate that change in perspective is NOW not at some point when it will be close to being too late. 102nd Avenue will gather people who are transit-minded so there will be people present. Edmonton should be looking to enhance that soon-to-be people corridor not ignoring it as you suggest.

 

[IanO]

It's not about 'ignoring it' but rather building future capacity when needed.

This middle traffic lane is a bit isolated and not that conducive to much from a usage standpoint. We have extra wide sidewalks on each side that are far more conducive and practical and should focus our efforts there.

 

[archited]

^^^^ Move the bike lanes to the centre of the street -- how hard could that be! And then expand the sidewalk allowing for the development of kiosks on that expanded sidewalk -- hot dogs, bagels... GD -- the list is endless. Do you not think that this kind of street activation would set the scene for "more to come"? Even if the existing lane picked up on linear kiosks with some planters, benches, etc. it would be better than leaving it as a wind tunnel of nothingness. BTW the word "Planning" implies a kind of future-think in its meaning -- I can't believe that you are so stuck on a non-starter argument -- it is this kind of thinking that holds the City back -- did you vote for Nickel?