TAS
Senior Member
I've been on this route several times during the past month and I don't really see many vehicles driving down 96st. Like each time I've been on it I can count on one hand for the 5 block stretch.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
I've been on this route several times during the past month and I don't really see many vehicles driving down 96st. Like each time I've been on it I can count on one hand for the 5 block stretch.
BrettB
Active Member
thommyjo
Senior Member
Agreed. For the city to make such a big deal, piss off bike haters, then execute so poorly and disappoint bikers is frustrating.
Either do it well and spend your chips. Or don’t make a big deal out of it and just add in MUPs as missing links for renewals and missing link funding. To make all this press around bike lanes, only to create suburban paths with 0 protections at crossings and intersections, and full of conflicts with pedestrians, dogs, groups/strollers….it just doesn’t make sense.
How our district connectors like 95ave, 107ave, etc became MUPs when they’re meant to be core routes that anchor the entire network is beyond me. Can’t wait to bike 6km/hr and weave inbetween hundreds of high schoolers walking to Jasper Place and FX on 95ave next year….
trevorhayden
Active Member
Danielle Smith pressed the city to downgrade the infrastructure.
inclusion
Active Member
I've asked Councillors about Bixi a few times now, and the answer I get is always that Edmonton isn't ready for it or its an incremental process, as far as people getting to like bikes, and people barely like bike lanes, etc. It is not surprising to me that we've watered down the core routes as well. It makes me wonder if the strategy internally has shifted due to the changes in bike lanes and the political landscape. It isn't unique to Edmonton or Alberta, either. Definitely borrowed from places in the US where they are fighting bike lanes. I was talking to my wife the other day about how trains are so common even on the East Coast of North America, but have all but disappeared from here.
She recalls her aunt saying she used to take the train from Red Deer to downtown all the time. Insane how in a generation that shifted. Now, our society is fixated on cars. You'd think that one close call by someone running a red light would be enough for people to get on board with bikes or other forms of transportation.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Public engagement on BRT, including a detailed design is open until December 5.
Option 2 is superior.
Option 2 is superior.
constance_chlore
Senior Member
Do you have a link?
TAS
Senior Member
thefreezebreeze
New Member
Found it: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/initiatives_innovation/mass-transit-implementation-project
Full booklet: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/defau...ute-B1-Draft-Design-Booklet.pdf?cb=1763428731
Option 1: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/defau...ss-Transit-Route-B1-Option1.pdf?cb=1763428731
Option 2: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/defau...ss-Transit-Route-B1-Option2.pdf?cb=1763428731
Option 3: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/Mass-Transit-Route-B1-Option3.pdf?cb=1763428
edit: Option 2 seems the most sensible for directness, though the option 3 transformation of the traffic circle is intriguing and honestly having the stops near Nait, kingsway, and the hospital could be very useful.
Last edited:
CplKlinger
Senior Member
I'm really torn between options two and three. I'm a huge supporter of centre running design since it could reduce misuse by private automobiles and better prepare/reserve the right-of-way for LRT, but it'd be great for this to integrate with the Kingsway transit centre.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Option 3 duplicates the Metro line. Not preferred.
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
I'd take option 1 or 3 just to get rid of the frankencircle on 101st and 118th. Hate that place.
More seriously, I need to think about how these impact 111th ave. It's our only decent east to west route north of the river without going all the way up to the Yellowhead. Option 1 and 2 looks like a hell of a lane cross for the buses when going from 101st to turn left on 97th. Crossing all 3 lanes in a very short block to make that left seems like a high chance of accidents. That spot is already crazy.
More seriously, I need to think about how these impact 111th ave. It's our only decent east to west route north of the river without going all the way up to the Yellowhead. Option 1 and 2 looks like a hell of a lane cross for the buses when going from 101st to turn left on 97th. Crossing all 3 lanes in a very short block to make that left seems like a high chance of accidents. That spot is already crazy.
Last edited:
thommyjo
Senior Member
Today is the last day to add supportive comments to the neighborhood renewal of belmead and la pearle. Please support active mode improvements being made! The positive feedback goes a long way for the city team. Critiques and feedback of course are welcome too. But they usually only hear from the haters.
cityofedmonton.qualtrics.com
BGN La Perle and Belmead Final Design Survey - Oct 2025
You are invited to ADVISE the team on how the final design reflects the Vision and Guiding Principles for La Perle and Belmead Neighbourhood Renewal and the current and future needs of your community.
thommyjo
Senior Member
113st is nice and open. This is the MUP north of 111th ave to kingsway that’s almost done.
TAS
Senior Member
Here is update on $100 million Accelerated Active Transportation Network Expansion (2023-26).
$73 million spent so far.
35.5km constructed to date in 2024 and 2025.
71km - total expected to be completed with the $100 million (this is reduction in total km from initial plan due to higher costs). Note: new snow removal equipment was also purchased with this money (didn't receive total cost of that).
2025 projects: 18 of 24 projects completed (72%) for a total of 18.1km. Remaining projects will be completed in 2026. These uncompleted projects are part of the $73million spent so far.
For the final $27 million
2026: 16 routes planned for a total of 25km + 6 unfinished projects from 2025 such as Kingsway Ave and Victoria Park Rd (again the 2025 projects are already contracted and money allocated as part of $73million spent so far)
2027: 107 Avenue project + unfinished projects from 2026
Snow removal:
Priority 1 (protected routes) within 24hr clearance
Priority 2 (new multi-use paths) within 72 hours
New: city will 'look at' clearing the 2025 local street bikeway routes as pilot
Clearing snow of new routes is posing a challenge because many routes transition from protected, to MUP, to shared street, back to protected or MUP etc - all with different priority clearance guidelines and different equipment needs.
$73 million spent so far.
35.5km constructed to date in 2024 and 2025.
71km - total expected to be completed with the $100 million (this is reduction in total km from initial plan due to higher costs). Note: new snow removal equipment was also purchased with this money (didn't receive total cost of that).
2025 projects: 18 of 24 projects completed (72%) for a total of 18.1km. Remaining projects will be completed in 2026. These uncompleted projects are part of the $73million spent so far.
For the final $27 million
2026: 16 routes planned for a total of 25km + 6 unfinished projects from 2025 such as Kingsway Ave and Victoria Park Rd (again the 2025 projects are already contracted and money allocated as part of $73million spent so far)
2027: 107 Avenue project + unfinished projects from 2026
Snow removal:
Priority 1 (protected routes) within 24hr clearance
Priority 2 (new multi-use paths) within 72 hours
New: city will 'look at' clearing the 2025 local street bikeway routes as pilot
Clearing snow of new routes is posing a challenge because many routes transition from protected, to MUP, to shared street, back to protected or MUP etc - all with different priority clearance guidelines and different equipment needs.