Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 112 of 112

Thread: Columbia BLVD (105ave) Streetscape - 109-119st

  1. #101

    Default

    The need is debatable, but since 106 ave will continue to be a through-route with no extra lights or other features to slow traffic I can't imagine that anyone would return to 105 after turning off. The vast majority of traffic on 105 should be people accessing businesses or residences right on or within a block of 105 ave, they shouldn't be using it to travel through.

    105ave is also closed to through traffic between 103 and 105 streets, and no one uses both the severed bits as apart of the same trip.
    There can only be one.

  2. #102
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,272

    Default

    Looking forward to Columbia BLVD being a little more partially complete.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,791

    Default

    That's true at Rogers Place. Also agree that 105 shouldn't be a through route, so we're probably agreeing on more than we're disagreeing.

    Living DT, I walk as often as possible, take the train other times and drive as little as possible.

    But the city seems to almost go out of its way to frustrate those who do, or even worse, those who need to drive.
    ... gobsmacked

  4. #104

    Default

    As someone living on 105 Ave its great news this up in the budget again. This area has a slow boil going and a commitment from the city would be a big boost. I will say that the loss of parking does hurt the ideal alignment would have been one-way vehicle traffic with a two way bike lane and parking. The only reason parking is being lost not to inconvenience drivers with one ways then the road is going to be split in two inconveniencing drivers anyways. Judging by the recent parking survey it seems the city has decided walk ability and parking are mutually exclusive, but I digress.I currently have mixed feelings about the plazaPros:-Cuts down cut through traffic-Hard to turn down park space in the inner city Cons:-traffic disruption for business and residents -more traffic helps with keeping “eyes on the street” helping with crime-Mckenzie & Mann park already underutilized some unsavory element All of that being said what I would like to see is the plaza delayed to a future date, maybe timed with development of the neighboring Atco property. This will give time to allow more residents to move into the area this along with better transit access via the 104 Ave LRT would allow business to become more established making them resilient to future traffic impacts. This time would also allow for increased eyes in the area to help with crime and ensure parks are properly utilized. Delaying the plaza provides a win-win for everyone imho.

  5. #105
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,051

    Default

    With future development at MacEwan moving forward I think this avenue has better chance of being something nice. Sidewalks here will continue to do a lot for making this a better road.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  6. #106
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,272

    Default

    ...and make the perceived 'back' of MacEwan another front.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #107

    Default

    The re-do and bike lanes can't do much but apparently McEwan's new campus plan has some significant changes to the drop-off loops at 106, 107, 108sts on both the north and south sides, turning them into less vehicle-dominated spaces. Should be soon, if you believe the plan. It's supposed to be a "quick win"
    There can only be one.

  8. #108

    Default

    It's a pretty good design. 105 Ave. is not a major through route for automobile traffic so I support the plaza. Part of the proposed bike lane is in the door zone of parked cars which is certainly not best practice but the rest of the bike lane is pretty good. One way bike lanes on each side of the street are much safer than bi-directional on street bike lanes. I hope this is funded. It will be a big boost for the area.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ...and make the perceived 'back' of MacEwan another front.
    ... sort of .... maybe

    Doubt there'll be a clock tower or street (avenue) front entrances. Those will still be side entrances.

    And don't you even think about impacting the Alberta Arts Foundation warehouse!
    ... gobsmacked

  10. #110

    Default

    The section where they have parking/loading on the curb side of the bike lane is a horrible compromise.

    I'm not convinced that the single-direction lanes are actually safer - at least I feel safer at intersections when I'm facing traffic like how you're supposed to walk on a road without sidewalks. That way I can see if someone's going to turn across me an take evasive action.

    There's also the issue with ice. With the snow and slush from the car lanes getting piled up against the barrier it spreads fresh ice with every day it thaws and re-freezes. Single direction lanes will be just as bad but without the extra width to avoid the bad icy spots. If the city were considering putting the drainage between the car and bike lanes but with the steeper camber of the curb-side combined with the ice and narrow width... I suspect that I'll be riding with cars more often in the winter if it goes ahead as planned.
    There can only be one.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ...and make the perceived 'back' of MacEwan another front.
    ... sort of .... maybe

    Doubt there'll be a clock tower or street (avenue) front entrances. Those will still be side entrances.

    And don't you even think about impacting the Alberta Arts Foundation warehouse!
    The 107st entrance is supposed to move closer to the street. Maybe enough that it's effectively a street-front entrance.

    We'll see.
    There can only be one.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The section where they have parking/loading on the curb side of the bike lane is a horrible compromise.

    I'm not convinced that the single-direction lanes are actually safer - at least I feel safer at intersections when I'm facing traffic like how you're supposed to walk on a road without sidewalks. That way I can see if someone's going to turn across me an take evasive action.

    There's also the issue with ice. With the snow and slush from the car lanes getting piled up against the barrier it spreads fresh ice with every day it thaws and re-freezes. Single direction lanes will be just as bad but without the extra width to avoid the bad icy spots. If the city were considering putting the drainage between the car and bike lanes but with the steeper camber of the curb-side combined with the ice and narrow width... I suspect that I'll be riding with cars more often in the winter if it goes ahead as planned.
    I agree with you about the compromise for parking/loading. However, single-direction bike lanes are substantially safer than bi-directional on-street lanes. The best bike cities in the world (Amsterdam, Copenhagen) stopped using them about 20 years ago because they weren't safe enough. Montreal is also moving away from them although it's tough to match up new single-direction lanes with older bi-directional lanes. The main safety issue for bi-directional lanes is at intersections where turning drivers turn across the lane because they are forced to check in two directions instead of just one direction. The only exception for bi-directional bike lanes should be for off-street lanes separated from auto traffic by a substantial buffer.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •