News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
102ave in glenora continues to not get cleared… they’ll do 124th street to 130th st. Then randomly stop instead of finishing to the logical end of the bike path at 136st. It’s infuriating.

This is the main bike route from the west end to downtown.

Can anyone the rides this area please join me in submitting 311 complaints and calling in to ask for the system/designation to be changed? Makes 0 sense to not go 5 more blocks for 10mins and just finish the route!!
 
thommyjo said:
102ave in glenora continues to not get cleared… they’ll do 124th street to 130th st. Then randomly stop instead of finishing to the logical end of the bike path at 136st. It’s infuriating.

This is the main bike route from the west end to downtown.

Can anyone the rides this area please join me in submitting 311 complaints and calling in to ask for the system/designation to be changed? Makes 0 sense to not go 5 more blocks for 10mins and just finish the route!!
Click to expand...
Could it be boundaries of separate contractors they use to clear the routes? Very frustrating. On the south side it's the same, certain portions of the same (mostly) continuous route get plowed at different time intervals.
 
ntt1 said:
Could it be boundaries of separate contractors they use to clear the routes? Very frustrating. On the south side it's the same, certain portions of the same (mostly) continuous route get plowed at different time intervals.
Click to expand...
I’ve chatted with city staff before on it. It’s because most of the path is considered priority 1. But the last like 5 blocks got designated the same as all other MUPs.

Which is just illogical to me because

1) 98% of users on that path are connecting to it west of where they stop snow clearing. Glenora residents aren’t making up the couple hundred of daily users ahha. Most are coming from west of 136st and connecting to that path right at its terminus

2) it’s literally just a few more blocks of the route already being cleared. The cost to, at a separate time, send a crew and vehicle back to do the 5 blocks they leave is such a waste. Take just 10 more minutes to finish the path when you’re doing the first section. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Great example of bureaucracy and decision makers not being users…or listening to users that call and email every year 🙄
 
In mostly better news, the 95ave design just got released: https://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/on_your_streets/95-avenue-renewal

This has been a real fight sadly. Residents on the southside were unsupportive to any changes that would impact their free street parking. Bike infrastructure was the tradeoff. Intersections were also completed unchanged and slip lanes persisted at 170st and 163st. (In original designs).

Not all the issues have been fixed, but some improvements were made. A raised crossing at 165st. Removal of slip lanes at 163st. Removal of the service road for a MUP and boulevard trees on the southside.

It’s not perfect, but an improvement from what was potentially going to be a massively permanent and bad design along a route that’s supposedly a “District Connector” in the Bike Plan.

The fact that it’s a MUP and not a bike path + sidewalk is still super frustrating though. Especially when this is an area with 6 schools and a future LRT stop. Separating modes should have been a higher priority.
 
thommyjo said:
In mostly better news, the 95ave design just got released: https://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/on_your_streets/95-avenue-renewal

This has been a real fight sadly. Residents on the southside were unsupportive to any changes that would impact their free street parking. Bike infrastructure was the tradeoff. Intersections were also completed unchanged and slip lanes persisted at 170st and 163st. (In original designs).

Not all the issues have been fixed, but some improvements were made. A raised crossing at 165st. Removal of slip lanes at 163st. Removal of the service road for a MUP and boulevard trees on the southside.

It’s not perfect, but an improvement from what was potentially going to be a massively permanent and bad design along a route that’s supposedly a “District Connector” in the Bike Plan.

The fact that it’s a MUP and not a bike path + sidewalk is still super frustrating though. Especially when this is an area with 6 schools and a future LRT stop. Separating modes should have been a higher priority.
Click to expand...

Would have been nice if it had received the same treatment as 132 Ave.

It frustrates me to no end how parked cars on streets like this have greater priority than providing a safer, viable option to move people around via active transportation since the city target is 50% mode share for active/public transportation.
 
Agree with the sentiments here, it's an improvement but also a disappointment. Also such a small segment of MUP that still don't connect with the rest of the network

Also just wanted to remind that this was also the community that fought painted bike lanes in 2014.


1709140688079.png



Was there a worse building period in Edmonton than the "service road" era? So much space is used and it seems to resilient to retro fitting to any other purpose. 75th street, 90th ave - all terrible biking experiences
 
They're keeping only the one crosswalk at the 167 St intersection and not adding another on the west side? Unfortunate.
 
On the memo website, there's a memo from Jan 22, 2024 regarding the active transportation acceleration plan. The memo website won't let me copy the document url annoyingly, and I can't figure out how to attach the PDF files that I uploaded here. That being said, here are some highlights.

Screenshot_20240313-185216_Drive.jpg
Screenshot_20240313-185414_Drive.jpg
Screenshot_20240313-185421_Drive.jpg
 
CplKlinger said:
On the memo website, there's a memo from Jan 22, 2024 regarding the active transportation acceleration plan. The memo website won't let me copy the document url annoyingly, and I can't figure out how to attach the PDF files that I uploaded here. That being said, here are some highlights.

View attachment 547963View attachment 547965View attachment 547964
Click to expand...

This is great. Do you have a URL for the Memo Website so I can access the document? Hoping to download the PDF myself if possible.

(Although as someone who lives in Hazeldean, I hope greatly that they upgrade the 97th St District Connector. It says it is currently existing, but there is no dedicated infrastructure.)
 
Last edited:
CplKlinger said:
On the memo website, there's a memo from Jan 22, 2024 regarding the active transportation acceleration plan. The memo website won't let me copy the document url annoyingly, and I can't figure out how to attach the PDF files that I uploaded here. That being said, here are some highlights.

View attachment 547963View attachment 547965View attachment 547964
Click to expand...
Bruh… WTH are Sharrows and painted bike lanes doing on here. This can’t be real.

Guess we’re still going to have to show up to every engagement to fight still?? Looks like more 105ave downtown and 95ave west side BS.

I’m struggling to be excited for this when they keep scaring us with brutal communication…

Sharrows should literally not even be in a modern bike plan document. I’m so confused.

And are they counting 87ave SUP for the LRT that switches sides of the road every few blocks a part of this…? that isn’t bike infrastructure if it adds 5-8 more minutes to your journey vs just using the road… and none of those intersections are protected for bikes based on the LRT design. Lessard road is so annoying for this.

And 142st bridge to 102ave is still going to have no route…protection…winter maintenance… cool. Only the primary connection on the west end to the 2nd busiest bike lane in our city. How is that not a missing link?

And why are routes in west central that are just a road with a blue “bike” sign being designated as already existing bike infrastructure?! THEYRE JUST ROADS. 0 protection. My kids can’t use these…

Also…most of this is “adaptable…?” Meaning…not permanent or high quality?? How is this costing 1mil+/km if it’s not super high quality, permanent infrastructure?

The main contact shared in that doc is someone that’s been with the city for 16 years and prior projects include the yellowhead freeway conversion and a bunch of road widenings… I’m sure they’re a great person. Maybe a big biker! But sort of scares me there’s not fresh people leading this. My prior run ins with COE engineers for street labs was wildly disappointing and shocker, none of them biked themselves…

Fingers crossed things are better than I’m worried they’re looking. Sorry to be so negative. We just can’t fumble this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top