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 

Out of Towner said:
Nice street but the Edmonton Journal author neglects to mention that while the bike path addresses some of her personal safety concerns, it also encourages others to jay walk since they can no longer park in front of their homes.. Most people including kids will run across the street to get to their car / parents car rather than walk over to the cross-walk to get to the other side. For able bodied people that may not be a huge concern but for people with mobility challenges, it's just one more thing to deal with - perhaps something they never expected.
Click to expand...
Dude. Just leave it. These comments are more laughable by the day.

“iT eNcOuRaGeS jAyWaLkInG” 🤡🤡🤡🤡
 
Most of the pre-1980s bungalows and bilevels around the city including along 132 Ave have a double car garage AND a parking pad big enough for two cars. The street parking is primarily for guests and those insistent on parking in front of their homes and/or uses their garage for storage instead of cars.
 
dkazzed said:
Most of the pre-1980s bungalows and bilevels around the city including along 132 Ave have a double car garage AND a parking pad big enough for two cars. The street parking is primarily for guests and those insistent on parking in front of their homes and/or uses their garage for storage instead of cars.
Click to expand...
The circumstances along 132 Ave are different and perhaps more suited to a bike path than the street pictured above. The bike paths, given the cost that others have presented, work to about $400 a lineal foot. So a bike path in front of a house with a 40 foot lot is $16K and it's difficult to make the argument that the pictured street is any safer with a bike path than without. The safety proposition in this and other cases is nonsense because the bike path along the pictured street creates some hazards too.
 
Out of Towner said:
You're a poor advocate for cyclists. Personal attacks do nothing to advance your views.
Click to expand...
Can’t advocate to people who can’t listen or understand data. Numerous people gave you clear answers and rebuttals to misinformed takes you presented. You continue to double down instead of being open to new ideas that are backed by research.
 
Out of Towner said:
The circumstances along 132 Ave are different and perhaps more suited to a bike path than the street pictured above. The bike paths, given the cost that others have presented, work to about $400 a lineal foot. So a bike path in front of a house with a 40 foot lot is $16K and it's difficult to make the argument that the pictured street is any safer with a bike path than without. The safety proposition in this and other cases is nonsense because the bike path along the pictured street creates some hazards too.
Click to expand...
If a bike path is 16k, what’s a 6 lane road?

Bike paths are cheaper than roads, both capital and operating.
 
Out of Towner said:
Nice street but the Edmonton Journal author neglects to mention that while the bike path addresses some of her personal safety concerns, it also encourages others to jay walk since they can no longer park in front of their homes.. Most people including kids will run across the street to get to their car / parents car rather than walk over to the cross-walk to get to the other side. For able bodied people that may not be a huge concern but for people with mobility challenges, it's just one more thing to deal with - perhaps something they never expected.
Click to expand...
132 ave gets around 6000-8000 aawdt in traffic along the stretch being changed pretty standard for a collector roadway. Other streets in the city with this kind of traffic volume are Buena Vista, 156 st out of Rio Terrace, 76 ave through Queen Alexandra. None of these streets are a hazard to cross on foot. The most "dangerous" being Buena Vista due to its width.

So 132 ave becoming narrower will make it safer.
 
Much of the growth in Edmonton is in the south, with higher density development in proximity to the LRT. North Edmonton is also growing with communities like Blatchford, Griesbach and the Muttart Lands, and they are closer to downtown If the LRT is extended northwest, areas like 132 Avenue will become more attractive locations.
 
Out of Towner said:
The circumstances along 132 Ave are different and perhaps more suited to a bike path than the street pictured above. The bike paths, given the cost that others have presented, work to about $400 a lineal foot. So a bike path in front of a house with a 40 foot lot is $16K and it's difficult to make the argument that the pictured street is any safer with a bike path than without. The safety proposition in this and other cases is nonsense because the bike path along the pictured street creates some hazards too.
Click to expand...
I go through that stretch quite often on my bike. You'll be happy to know that since the road has been narrowed, cars travel much slower and thus safer.
Any increase in danger from your jay-walking concern is far outweighed by the benefits simply from slower travelling cars.
It's gotten so safe in fact that I regularly see children and seniors riding their bikes on these paths.
 
That photo of 127 St, a contraflow bike lane existed for about 4 decades, they just fully converted it into a protected two way bike path. The same thing happened on 110 St south of the river. Neither of those streets are high traffic streets being adjacent and parallel to 124 St and 109 St respectively, and are both default 40 km/h zones which are encouraged by the narrow drive lane.
 
I always laugh at the premise of narrowed streets creating more obstructions/hazards for drivers. Maybe if people weren't so shite at handling their (likely oversized) vehicles, or followed posted speed limits, that wouldn't be much of an issue?

dkazzed said:
That photo of 127 St, a contraflow bike lane existed for about 4 decades, they just fully converted it into a protected two way bike path. The same thing happened on 110 St south of the river. Neither of those streets are high traffic streets being adjacent and parallel to 124 St and 109 St respectively, and are both default 40 km/h zones which are encouraged by the narrow drive lane.
Click to expand...
I really wish the 110 St lane was continued past 76 Ave heading south into Parkallen, that is a pretty big missing link, imo. It'd be nice to be able to connect with the 111 Street multiuse path that way rather than having to go through Belgravia/South Campus or over to 106 St.
 
ntt1 said:
I always laugh at the premise of narrowed streets creating more obstructions/hazards for drivers. Maybe if people weren't so shite at handling their (likely oversized) vehicles, or followed posted speed limits, that wouldn't be much of an issue?


I really wish the 110 St lane was continued past 76 Ave heading south into Parkallen, that is a pretty big missing link, imo. It'd be nice to be able to connect with the 111 Street multiuse path that way rather than having to go through Belgravia/South Campus or over to 106 St.
Click to expand...
I find the best route coming down 110 is to turn onto 76 then go down south on 112. 112 loops through parkallen and connects to the MUP in 111
 
ededed said:
I find the best route coming down 110 is to turn onto 76 then go down south on 112. 112 loops through parkallen and connects to the MUP in 111
Click to expand...
Yeah, same here, though the 72 Ave crossing can get dicey sometimes. 113 Street also works, though a lot of motorists disobey the no left turn to go north in the mornings as well, which is unfortunate.

112 Street also was nice before the speed bumps were added but it’s quite narrow with the street parking now.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top