News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

thommyjo said:
Agreed. Which is why design for walking and bikes first can really help vs drop off loops and crazy intersections 30ft from front doors.

I like the approach some cities have taken where they essentially close the roads in front of of schools and make parents drop off further away. Helps spread out the cars so there’s less congestion from everyone trying to essentially get right to the front doors, and keeps cars away from the area most busy with kids.

We need more bike parking at schools to be secure as well. High schools should have cages with cameras inside of courtyards and next to admin windows.
Click to expand...
For sure. Narrowing roads and adding curb extensions also makes it so people can't randomly make u-turns wherever they please, or park too close and block visibility of crosswalks with their huge SUVs. Which are things I see regularly, unfortunately.
 
141St Stony PlRd intersection MUP is now open
IMG_7464.jpeg
 
TAS said:
Prior to the bike lanes on 106st south of 76 Ave, was this a 4 lane road?
Click to expand...
It was single lane travel each way with a parking lane on each side, I believe. But narrower compared to similar configurations constructed in the 1970s-80s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAS
Gronk! said:
www.ctvnews.ca

Transportation minister promises legislation to address impact on traffic by future bike lane projects

Alberta’s transportation minister is promising new legislation to ensure traffic impact assessments are in place for all future bike lane projects.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca
Click to expand...
132 Ave was so overbuilt, I doubt there would be much traffic impact. Plus, the city's ongoing policy of pushing bike routes to MUPs or collector/neighbourhood roads would also likely produce a negligible impact. All that to say, not sure what the minister is trying to achieve.
 
BrettB said:
132 Ave was so overbuilt, I doubt there would be much traffic impact. Plus, the city's ongoing policy of pushing bike routes to MUPs or collector/neighbourhood roads would also likely produce a negligible impact. All that to say, not sure what the minister is trying to achieve.
Click to expand...
Distraction and rage baiting.
 
On these secondary streets (is 96th), maybe it's time to call the minister's bluff and say, 'ok, we won't put in a lane,' and instead put in traffic filters and calming measures everywhere. It's been Vancouver's strategy outside the core for decades.

I say that because my brother lives on 95 A St in Norwood and he constantly drives down to 96th St from 118th to 111th Ave and then to Kingsway or downtown. He says now that 96 St is one way southbound (with a northbound bike lane), it's the best way to beat rush hour traffic.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top