[CplKlinger]

Update on the Active Transportation Acceleration Project, from the YEG Bike Coalition, who attended some sort of info event for the cycling community:

• "3.9km of routes are complete, however they claim to be on schedule overall, and that these delays won't affect the planned 2025-26 projects
• They are planning 82km of infrastructure across 57 routes by the end of 2026, with the following facility types planned:
  • 50% shared pathways
  • 31% local street bikeways
  • 12% protected on street
  • 7% contraflow bike lanes
• The routes for 2025 are selected, and they are in the process of contracting. A total of 23 routes and 23.5km of infrastructure is planned for 2025.
• There are some considerations being addressed for the 2026 routes, like negotiating with affected property owners and in some cases, acquiring property that are underway. The current routes for 2026 total 29.8km of infrastructure across 17 routes.
  • We noted that the yearly total routes don't add up to 82km but were not able to get that question in during the allotted time and we've reached out to confirm.
• This project also includes lighting improvements, bike parking, education, snow clearing equipment alongside the above infrastructure.
• There is a prioritized list of missing links across the City, and those which are not addressed by this project will need to be prioritized and funded at a later time.
• They asked the attendees for feedback on 3 representative routes: a local street bikeway, a protected bike lane, and a shared pathway.
• The team also recently hosted a feedback session on the planned route for 107 Avenue, and they assure us that they are taking the provided feedback into consideration and that they heard us loud and clear. We sincerely hope that this is true."

 

[TAS]

Update on the Active Transportation Acceleration Project, from the YEG Bike Coalition, who attended some sort of info event for the cycling community:

• "3.9km of routes are complete, however they claim to be on schedule overall, and that these delays won't affect the planned 2025-26 projects
• They are planning 82km of infrastructure across 57 routes by the end of 2026, with the following facility types planned:
  • 50% shared pathways
  • 31% local street bikeways
  • 12% protected on street
  • 7% contraflow bike lanes
• The routes for 2025 are selected, and they are in the process of contracting. A total of 23 routes and 23.5km of infrastructure is planned for 2025.
• There are some considerations being addressed for the 2026 routes, like negotiating with affected property owners and in some cases, acquiring property that are underway. The current routes for 2026 total 29.8km of infrastructure across 17 routes.
  • We noted that the yearly total routes don't add up to 82km but were not able to get that question in during the allotted time and we've reached out to confirm.
• This project also includes lighting improvements, bike parking, education, snow clearing equipment alongside the above infrastructure.
• There is a prioritized list of missing links across the City, and those which are not addressed by this project will need to be prioritized and funded at a later time.
• They asked the attendees for feedback on 3 representative routes: a local street bikeway, a protected bike lane, and a shared pathway.
• The team also recently hosted a feedback session on the planned route for 107 Avenue, and they assure us that they are taking the provided feedback into consideration and that they heard us loud and clear. We sincerely hope that this is true."

There's an additional 11km to those 2024-26 proposed routes that are categorized as 'aligning with other capital projects' - that's where extra distance comes from.

Certainly, when this funding was announced in 2022 I think a lot of advocates, myself included, expected we would see a lot more protected bike lanes on roadways. But it has turned out to be largely shared use paths and these routes don't reduce traffic lanes or parking but still provide a safer space for bikes, scooters and mobility devices. It can cause conflict with pedestrians, though.
100% of 2024 routes (17.4km) are shared use path and 50% of 2025 routes (23.5km) are shared. Another 31% are bikes/vehicles sharing the roadway but the city is adding traffic calming measures to those routes such as extended curbs and speed limits will be reduced to 30km.
Overall, folks concerned about this particular active transportation network expansion 'taking away' space from cars or parking have virtually nothing to worry about.

 

[Kosy123]

There's an additional 11km to those 2024-26 proposed routes that are categorized as 'aligning with other capital projects' - that's where extra distance comes from.

Certainly, when this funding was announced in 2022 I think a lot of advocates, myself included, expected we would see a lot more protected bike lanes on roadways. But it has turned out to be largely shared use paths and these routes don't reduce traffic lanes or parking but still provide a safer space for bikes, scooters and mobility devices. It can cause conflict with pedestrians, though.
100% of 2024 routes (17.4km) are shared use path and 50% of 2025 routes (23.5km) are shared. Another 31% are bikes/vehicles sharing the roadway but the city is adding traffic calming measures to those routes such as extended curbs and speed limits will be reduced to 30km.
Overall, folks concerned about this particular active transportation network expansion 'taking away' space from cars or parking have virtually nothing to worry about.

I'm probably wrong in this, but it seems like a lot of our protected bike lane networks are being put in through neighbourhood renewals rather than big projects like these?

 

[Gronk!]

I'm probably wrong in this, but it seems like a lot of our protected bike lane networks are being put in through neighbourhood renewals rather than big projects like these?

You're not wrong. The 100 Ave bike lane extension west of 109 St will be funded through the Wîhkwêntôwin neighborhood renewal project instead of the Active Transportation project.

 

[TAS]

You're not wrong. The 100 Ave bike lane extension west of 109 St will be funded through the Wîhkwêntôwin neighborhood renewal project instead of the Active Transportation project.

And then immediately west of 116 st down Victoria Park Rd funding goes back to active transportation network (2025 planned route).

 

[BrettB]

There's an additional 11km to those 2024-26 proposed routes that are categorized as 'aligning with other capital projects' - that's where extra distance comes from.

Certainly, when this funding was announced in 2022 I think a lot of advocates, myself included, expected we would see a lot more protected bike lanes on roadways. But it has turned out to be largely shared use paths and these routes don't reduce traffic lanes or parking but still provide a safer space for bikes, scooters and mobility devices. It can cause conflict with pedestrians, though.
100% of 2024 routes (17.4km) are shared use path and 50% of 2025 routes (23.5km) are shared. Another 31% are bikes/vehicles sharing the roadway but the city is adding traffic calming measures to those routes such as extended curbs and speed limits will be reduced to 30km.
Overall, folks concerned about this particular active transportation network expansion 'taking away' space from cars or parking have virtually nothing to worry about.

Probably a lot more politically expedient to make the bike infrastructure MUPs rather than risk the ire of drivers.

 

[mcr]

Probably a lot more politically expedient to make the bike infrastructure MUPs rather than risk the ire of drivers.

Agreed, I think this is a good way to approach it and keep the program a bit safer with potential council/mayoral changes. Focus on "keeping it the same for drivers" in the big project, and as mentioned a few posts ago, focus on more dedicated routes via Neighbourhood Renewal, which seems to have less pushback overall. Balanced approach, and for a lot of bike users, especially casual, shared use are great, while imperfect. I'll take it, that's for sure.

 

[dkazzed]

96 St and 119 Ave were all part of their respective neighbourhood renewals. What about the central ones -- 83 Ave, 100 Ave, 102 Ave, 106 St, etc.?
People were outraged by bike lanes getting priority clearing over roads. But mention that most of them are shared use paths and most of the shared use path users are pedestrians and people suddenly calm down and it's ok. There's a real bias against cyclists.

 

[TAS]

96 St and 119 Ave were all part of their respective neighbourhood renewals. What about the central ones -- 83 Ave, 100 Ave, 102 Ave, 106 St, etc.?
People were outraged by bike lanes getting priority clearing over roads. But mention that most of them are shared use paths and most of the shared use path users are pedestrians and people suddenly calm down and it's ok. There's a real bias against cyclists.

83, 100, 102 and 106st dt for sure we're not part of neighbourhood renewals. They really kick started things to have a basic network within central part of city and downtown with intent to build out from there.

Warehouse Park will provide better infrastructure on 106st dt, the valley line creating new infrastructure on 102 Ave, Wihkwentowin N.Renewal will really enhance the central network (especially the areas branching off from 100 and 102 Aves) as did the Strathcona and Garneau renewals in those respective areas.

 

[thommyjo]

Local street bikeways are trash.

Why.

Anyone willing to regularly bike on those…is already willing to ride. A little traffic calming is fine, but doesn’t move the ridership needle. This has been proven time and time again.

Separated/protected is what changes ridership. Paths or lanes.

And for a winter city, as I’ve experienced this week, our bike network becomes almost obsolete in weather like we currently have if there’s not consistent treatment. A 10 block stretch of “local street bikeway” connecting 2 high quality routes is all it takes for me to be forced to drive.

Also, why have we seen 0 protected intersections being built like Ottawa and Vancouver are doing so well??

 

[degrandprix]

Are "local street bikeways" the same as sharrows?

 

[dkazzed]

Local street bikeways are trash.

Why.

Anyone willing to regularly bike on those…is already willing to ride. A little traffic calming is fine, but doesn’t move the ridership needle. This has been proven time and time again.

Separated/protected is what changes ridership. Paths or lanes.

And for a winter city, as I’ve experienced this week, our bike network becomes almost obsolete in weather like we currently have if there’s not consistent treatment. A 10 block stretch of “local street bikeway” connecting 2 high quality routes is all it takes for me to be forced to drive.

Also, why have we seen 0 protected intersections being built like Ottawa and Vancouver are doing so well??

Yea. I'm also going to call out the contraflow painted bike lanes. I took 96 St yesterday just to head up to Yellowhead SUP and it is unrideable from 111 Ave to 119 Ave and also 102A Ave to 103A Ave. You go from high priority snow clearing protected bike lanes to not even on the radar for the bikeways and contraflows.

Fancy protected intersections like on both sides of Burrard Street Bridge would be amazing but I think in Vancouver's case, it was a need. High Level Bridge sees 2,000 cyclists per weekday in the summer months and Burrard Street Bridge in excess of 7,000 per day in the summer, dropping to 1,500 on average in the winter. But it does beg the question what kind of numbers could we see in Edmonton if proper bike lanes were built across the river connecting the university and downtown (without having to dip into the valley).

Are "local street bikeways" the same as sharrows?

Yes.

 

[Barnaby]

Local street bikeways on one-way streets with modal filtering can actually be great compared to the norm. I don't think we should be completely throwing them out.

The issue isn't the design of the street as much as the use of the street by cars. Neighbourhoods that have cars cutting through them will naturally be bad for biking of this kind.

I definitely prefer MUPs and dedicated lanes, but these shared streets can be done right, as seen in Europe.

 

[dkazzed]

City of Vancouver largely has bike ways outside of the central core too. Most cross traffic has to stop for them yet it's inconvenient to impossible for cars to use as a through route thanks to the median filters like what was installed on Whyte Ave and 97 St as well as islands. But the key phrase is done right, and whether they attract new mode shift cyclists or even casual cyclists is the other question.

 

[thommyjo]

I think bikeways are only acceptable if there's a least 1 fully AAA (all ages and abilities) bike route along a parallel corridor. (within a few blocks and traveling the same way)

For example, where I live on the West End, 95ave is becoming the District Connector. They're making it a MUP (not ideal, but ok), but it's fully separated/protected and goes from 189st to 142st. Amazing. 92ave and 97ave are also E/W bike routes currently. No infrastructure, just sharrows. Ideally those roads would have neighbourhood level MUPs in the future, but then being "local street bikeways" for now while demand is lower is fine. People can take slight detours to access the main protected route for longer trips. But if people need to start doing 40,60,80% of a trip on non protected routes (or uncleared winter routes), then only the most confident riders will be out there.

Local bikeways take little effort and should be a part of vision zero/street lab level projects. The 100 Million for Bike Lanes should be high quality, Key Routes, that maximize improvements to our city-wide bike grid. That's what it was touted as. Not crappy little modal filters that should happen with or with/out this special funding.

That's my beef. We have to maximize ridership.

Also, difference in Vancouver as someone that works/rides there: 1) way narrower streets, 2) no snow, 3) slower streets, 4) denser core with low car use meaning less busy bikeways as more people walk/transit. And even still, you rarely see kids/seniors biking on 10th ave, but you see lots on the Arbutus greenway. So it clearly isn't a solution for All riders.

Good video here. 6min mark has some interesting thoughts on MUPs/sidewalks and also mentions the critical need for protected intersections of which we have 0 still I believe.