thommyjo
Senior Member
You’re probably not wrong
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
No it won't. The earliest is 2026 when the city begins neighbourhood renewal.
ntt1
Active Member
Yeah... I was also not enthused when I saw the first photo with sharrows and painted bike lanes. If that is going to be the solution for some areas I hope it would come with some other form of traffic calming because just slapping paint on the road is not a solution. The painted sections around the southside (106 St etc) are practically unusable all winter and turn into pothole and debris gutters in the spring. And adding in the fact that those roads are way too wide, and a large number drivers here can't even keep their lane...
northlands
Senior Member
A great question.
Their number coincides similarly to what it costs to rehab a road per km (which I think, depending on road size and scope, is something around $1.2m per km with new curbs/sidewalks included). So while I understand that adding bike infrastructure does often require or coincide with a full road rehab, it kind of feels like they're trying hard to offloading some roadwork costs onto the funds earmarked for bike lanes.
YEG Bus Rider
Active Member
TAS
Senior Member
It's my understanding that a good portion of the cost for this bike infrastructure goes into the traffic light system/fixtures that have to be updated and integrated and so the more intersections with traffic lights a bike lane goes through adds to the cost.
Also multi use paths are some of the most costly type of infrastructure apparently. This type, at least, can be described as permanent. But for the separated bike lanes on streets type of infrastructure, it's also my understanding that none of it is going to be high quality permanent style barriers.
It's also my impression, and maybe not surprisingly and perhaps even understandable, that the city is nervous of the new infrastructure coming in 2025 and 2026 because there are going to be cases where some parking will be lost and/or a driving lane will be removed. You can tell that by where some of the routes will be and there's just no other way. And so that's when the public resistance is really going to start up again like it has regarding the early stage of planning on 76 Ave where a petition is going around to fight the loss of any parking or slowing down traffic. There's no resistance to the 2024 bike routes announced because it doesn't affect drivers in the least.
The city I guess is treading lightly for 2024. But as the active transportation system expands, which is essential, something will haVe to give in some areas such as parking (I hate how much space has to be dedicated to parking) and so that's when things will get noisy again.
Last edited:
thommyjo
Senior Member
That’s why temporary infrastructure is a problem. It’ll get ripped out if a Nickel type guy gets in. See Vancouver.
Also, how freaking bad are we at building stuff if TEMPORARY bike lanes are 1mil a km.
What a joke.
They better address intersections in this plan. Not just slap down routes that throw you into arterials with 0 protection.
JuliallThat
Active Member
One road/intersection of high relevance to me that is in their plan is 112 Ave @ 82 St.
There's not really any room available to be sacrificed on the road or sidewalk. The sidewalks on the western portion is already too narrow, the road is curb to curb 4 lanes and a turn lane, and frequently backs up due to the LRT crossing.
There wouldn't be any tolerance here for removing a vehicular lane, so it'll take a genuine redesign, maybe even encroachments or land acquisition to accommodate bike traffic.
I don't think there's anything they could do with "tempermenant" infrastructure to accommodate bike lanes through that intersection, a redesign will be required. So I'm very very curious to see how they approach it - and a little worried.
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
I live near this corner and agree it's a major issue I have yet to see addressed. Alot of people bike on the sidewalk on the south side of 112th because biking on the road would be suicide, but there are a number of near blind alley exits that are going to lead to someone getting killed by a car.
My idea is to see them extend the bike path through the alley along Kinnaird ravine and then under the Kinnaird bridge to connect with the bike path by the Legion. It's a little circuitous but there is space to make a dedicate bike lane that is completely separated from traffic with exits onto the main roads as needed. I bet the main opposition would be the River Valley Alliance folks but that ravine could actually use some higher level of activation to make it safer anyway.
northlands
Senior Member
^ I like that suggestion. Another idea I had was to expand the east side walkway on Kinnaird bridge to be a MUP, and then you cross over on the south side of the bridge on 111 ave. But given the bridge rehab already happened, bit late for that idea.
Otherwise, I agree with @JuliallThat -- how exactly do they plan to fill in that missing link in a sensible manner that won't make a mess of that intersection or be dangerous to cyclists?
Otherwise, I agree with @JuliallThat -- how exactly do they plan to fill in that missing link in a sensible manner that won't make a mess of that intersection or be dangerous to cyclists?
JuliallThat
Active Member
I wouldn't be opposed to a path extension like that in addition to a bike lane on 112 Ave, but I would consider it to be an absolute failure as an alternative.
Having the bike lane directly on 112 Ave supports access to shopping and services which is critically important to supporting usage of this infrastructure. Not to mention grade changes, inevitable winter condition, or that since it's hidden/out of the way its usage would be far lower for casual users; many will still opt to just ride on the sidewalk down the main road anyways.
Personally I would use a bike lane on 112 to get to the Save-On. I wouldn't use this one under the Kinnaird bridge ever.
Gronk!
Senior Member
112 Ave definitely needs a separated MUP on the north side for access to Save On and Borden Park.
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
I agree that a bike lane on 112 ave would be preferable, but I'm not holding my breath. I do not see them spending the money or disruption to mess with that intersection. I think a proper bike crossing at 80th street from the bike lane along 112ave S would allow access to Save On a lot better than currently is available.
My idea is mainly to fix the conflict I see with bike commuters from Highlands and area travelling into the core, which I would argue is the majority of bike usage through here. I agree it has problems with grade, maintenance, and visibility but IMO it would be the most realistic way to get real separated bike infrastructure through the area.
As northlands pointed out, the lack of bike consideration on the Kinnaird Bridge rehab was a major miss by the city and IMO is further evidence of the lack of actual commitment to bike infrastructure by city administration.
TAS
Senior Member
Proposal to pedestrianize section of 83 Ave. Makes total sense.
Gronk!
Senior Member
City invests in better bike parking at schools, but reaching it remains tough
The City of Edmonton has set aside $75,000 for schools and other organizations to improve bike parking, but some cyclists suggest challenges remain to feel safe riding to those new spots.
edmonton.taproot.news