Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1129

Thread: Cycling Infrastructure | Discussion

  1. #201
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,957

    Default



    New “bike boxes” coming to Edmonton
    August 23, 2012

    If you thought Edmonton’s bike rules were confusing, they are about to get even more so … at least until people get used to another marking on the road.

    Check out the intersection of 116th Street and 87th Avenue in September. As soon as the road construction ends there, we’ll be looking at the first of Edmonton’s new bike boxes. You can see diagrams of how the bike boxes work at www.edmonton.ca/bikebox.

    The big green square next to a dedicated bike lane indicates the spot where left-turning bikes are allowed to pull ahead of cars stopped at a red light.

    It should make the bikers more visible, said Siggelkow, who is the project engineer responsible for overseeing the changes.

    It will also make biking in rush hour faster, because you could legally by-pass any line-up at the light. And it keeps bikes from thinking they should be pulling onto the side of the road at an intersection. It tells bikes to stand their ground, be obvious, and even pull in front.
    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...ng-to-edmonton

  2. #202
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta Ave
    Posts
    373

    Default

    these do reduce collisions and make intersections more predictable but i'm not sure about the decision to disallow right-on-red where they are used. the extra space for bikes allows right turning vehicles the space to fit behind, and that's how they are used in my experience in the UK, however they are often set up more like this:


  3. #203
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^ I like that setup better than the no right on red silliness, especially at a T intersection.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdk13 View Post
    these do reduce collisions and make intersections more predictable but i'm not sure about the decision to disallow right-on-red where they are used. the extra space for bikes allows right turning vehicles the space to fit behind, and that's how they are used in my experience in the UK, however they are often set up more like this:

    In practice how would the above work. As a Cyclist in that road alignment I'd anticipate a big problem in the non solid portion of that line approaching intersection where every car in sight is going to cross over the bike path to get to the right hand turn lane. That looks crazy. I'd far rather prefer staying close to the curb. At least in that position nobody is sideswiping me to make a right hand turn prior to the intersection.

    "Yield to bikes"? Seriously that wouldn't work in a city with a driver demographic that doesn't even see bikes and when they do spot them immediately detect them as annoyances to pass as quickly as possible. Setting up systems like this here before biking is even acknowledged here would be dangerous. For that diagram to be accurate there should be a crumpled bike with an X marks the spot at the crossover. Because thats what would happen.
    Last edited by Replacement; 26-08-2012 at 10:45 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  5. #205
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^ In think the dashed area is the safest place for through bicycle traffic and right turning automobile traffic to cross. Cars are still generally going faster than cyclists at that point, so they have an opportunity to see the bikes they need to avoid ahead of them. If both are stopped at the intersection with the bicycle on the right, the cyclist is harder to see and their paths are still conflicting.

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ In think the dashed area is the safest place for through bicycle traffic and right turning automobile traffic to cross. Cars are still generally going faster than cyclists at that point, so they have an opportunity to see the bikes they need to avoid ahead of them. If both are stopped at the intersection with the bicycle on the right, the cyclist is harder to see and their paths are still conflicting.
    In effect what would happen here is me being stopped in the middle of the road while a dozen cars in a row completely oblivious to a cyclist make a buzz cut across the bike lane. At least when I'm at a curb I can wait comfortably for all the cars to turn right until I proceed or until one driver is courteous or attentive. I'd rather be safely stopped at a curb then right in the middle of the road wondering what to do.

    I don't get how you think the cyclist is harder to see at the intersection. Drivers look right at me and turn right anyway when the walk sign comes on. Like I'm not even there. Not because they don't spot me but they don't ACKNOWLEDGE the cycling mode of travel as being valid. This being generally the rule in Edmonton. The yield for cyclists sign should come with a laughtrack, although for the unsuspecting cyclists that think it will ever mean anything to drivers the consequences would be extremely unfortunate and not at all funny.

    This should definitely not be considered here until such time that cycling is actually recognized by drivers in this city. Still a long way to go.
    Last edited by Replacement; 26-08-2012 at 10:46 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  7. #207
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    When I encounter a traffic light while cycling, I try to position myself between the through traffic and the right-turning traffic whenever possible. That keeps me out of their way while the light is red and them out of my way when the light turns green. The markings posted by jdk13 just make sense to me. Once at the intersection nobody is trying to cross your path.

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    When I encounter a traffic light while cycling, I try to position myself between the through traffic and the right-turning traffic whenever possible. That keeps me out of their way while the light is red and them out of my way when the light turns green. The markings posted by jdk13 just make sense to me. Once at the intersection nobody is trying to cross your path.
    Other than this hypothetical configuration you must be talking about intersections with a righthand turnway.(not sure what the proper name for those are) Otherwise you'd be positioned right between two lanes or blocking cars trying to turn right on red. I'm talking standard intersections in which if I'm butt end against the curb I'm not blocking anybody from turning right. I don't fight or play chicken with motor vehicles. I've been on the losing end of that exchange before. If a driver is insistent on proceeding across my path I don't tempt fate.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  9. #209
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jdk13 View Post
    these do reduce collisions and make intersections more predictable but i'm not sure about the decision to disallow right-on-red where they are used. the extra space for bikes allows right turning vehicles the space to fit behind, and that's how they are used in my experience in the UK, however they are often set up more like this:

    In practice how would the above work. As a Cyclist in that road alignment I'd anticipate a big problem in the non solid portion of that line approaching intersection where every car in sight is going to cross over the bike path to get to the right hand turn lane. That looks crazy. I'd far rather prefer staying close to the curb. At least in that position nobody is sideswiping me to make a right hand turn prior to the intersection.

    "Yield to bikes"? Seriously that wouldn't work in a city with a driver demographic that doesn't even see bikes and when they do spot them immediately detect them as annoyances to pass as quickly as possible. Setting up systems like this here before biking is even acknowledged here would be dangerous. For that diagram to be accurate there should be a crumpled bike with an X marks the spot at the crossover. Because thats what would happen.
    This diagram is exactly how I bike where there are right turn lanes, and I have never had a problem. Find that drivers are generally good when they are moving forward. It's when they are stopped and looking for a gap in traffic to make a turn is when they are the most dangerous.

    If a cyclist is moving faster than auto traffic it's a different story. Drivers never look to bikes coming from behind.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jdk13 View Post
    these do reduce collisions and make intersections more predictable but i'm not sure about the decision to disallow right-on-red where they are used. the extra space for bikes allows right turning vehicles the space to fit behind, and that's how they are used in my experience in the UK, however they are often set up more like this:

    In practice how would the above work. As a Cyclist in that road alignment I'd anticipate a big problem in the non solid portion of that line approaching intersection where every car in sight is going to cross over the bike path to get to the right hand turn lane. That looks crazy. I'd far rather prefer staying close to the curb. At least in that position nobody is sideswiping me to make a right hand turn prior to the intersection.

    "Yield to bikes"? Seriously that wouldn't work in a city with a driver demographic that doesn't even see bikes and when they do spot them immediately detect them as annoyances to pass as quickly as possible. Setting up systems like this here before biking is even acknowledged here would be dangerous. For that diagram to be accurate there should be a crumpled bike with an X marks the spot at the crossover. Because thats what would happen.
    This diagram is exactly how I bike where there are right turn lanes, and I have never had a problem. Find that drivers are generally good when they are moving forward. It's when they are stopped and looking for a gap in traffic to make a turn is when they are the most dangerous.

    If a cyclist is moving faster than auto traffic it's a different story. Drivers never look to bikes coming from behind.
    i always seem to get the drivers that insist on trying to pass me before cutting me right off (assuming they've passed me) to get to the right hand turn. Instead of just turning behind me. I have no idea why drivers do this. But everything in this city seems geared to driving fast with limited sensibility.
    As far as the diagram and discussion if there is a concrete island between the right turnway and the straight through traffic thats where I'll be positioned. If there isn't a concrete island I'm less comfortable my positioning in the middle of the road would be wise.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #211
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    While I certainly appreciate the paths and bike boxes make many cyclists more comfortable, and may help with making them more visible to drivers, it doesn't do a lot for me.

    When I come to a red light at an intersection I pull into the middle of the lane so I'm both highly visible and nobody is tempted to squeeze me out. I've found that hugging the curb at an intersection makes it harder for drivers to see me.

    So, if I'm the first at the intersection, I'm usually right in the middle of the lane. Often, as a courtesy, I'll move further to the left so cars can go past me on the right and make a right turn. I get a lot of drivers waving thanks, or even rolling down their window to do so.

    If there are other cars already waiting at the light I pull into the middle of the lane so a driver behind me can easily see me, and the driver in front of me can see me in their rear view mirror.

    In other words, I act like a vehicle. I've never had a problem from the drivers when I do that. Being visible, and predictable, is the best way for me to keep safe.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  12. #212

    Default

    I don't know if this is the right place to start this discussion or if it's already taking place elsewhere, but what are peoples' thoughts on the cyclist killed today on Whyte Ave? Could a bike lane have saved his life, or is this really just a freak accident that happens from time to time? What about a rule requiring drivers, especially large truck drivers, to fold their big side view mirrors in while parked?


    At the end of the day, while unforunate, it seems as though this accident was mostly the cyclist's fault.

  13. #213

    Default

    Main strips are a really terrible place for infrastructure.

    In any case, training and licensing for cyclists would obviate the need for a lot of fancy construction.

  14. #214

    Default

    I think 83 Ave would be a great place for a bike route, especially since it's recently been repaved! Could make it similar to how 127 Street south of 118 Ave works where it's one way for cars but allows two-way bike traffic. Wouldn't cost much, just some paint and signage.

    While I agree that training for many cyclists may be in order, plenty of drivers need better education on how to deal with cyclists, as well. Shared responsibility, right? I'm talking as both a driver and cyclist.

  15. #215
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Main strips are a terrible place for infrastructure? See Maisonneuve in Montreal or many of the main strips in Berlin or Amsterdam. Regardless, training and licensing cyclists is not the solution. It doesn't stop car accidents does it? While I agree education is often necessary, licensing will only make cycling, a form of transportation accessible to all aspects of society, more exclusive than it needs to be.
    Mike

  16. #216
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    You're absolutely right Mike. Well put.

    I'd like to see road safety taught in junior high school since it's such a big part of people's lives.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  17. #217
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Municipal Man of Mystery View Post
    I don't know if this is the right place to start this discussion or if it's already taking place elsewhere, but what are peoples' thoughts on the cyclist killed today on Whyte Ave? Could a bike lane have saved his life, or is this really just a freak accident that happens from time to time? What about a rule requiring drivers, especially large truck drivers, to fold their big side view mirrors in while parked?

    At the end of the day, while unforunate, it seems as though this accident was mostly the cyclist's fault.
    I think it was pretty much a freak accident, and a tragedy. I was upset when I heard about it, and really wanted to get mad at someone, to find fault and lay blame, but I don't think it was anyone's fault. Because of their reflective nature mirrors can be very hard to distinguish until you're right on top of them. My heart goes out to all involved, and to the friends and family of the poor cyclist.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  18. #218
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,142

    Default

    It appears the driver of the parked truck may be partly to blame:

    In that block on Whyte Avenue there are two lanes of traffic in each direction, plus a lane for the parked cars. Traffic officers were measuring how far the pickup truck was parked from the curb, which appeared to be more than a foot. Johnson said charges are possible against the driver of the pickup, who sat watching the officers work.

    Under a city bylaw, vehicles must park no farther than 50 centimetres (19.68 inches) from the curb.


    “It sounds like this collision was a result of everyone just pushing the boundaries of what’s safe,” said Coun. Ben Henderson, who has been working on Edmonton’s bike plans.

    It’s illegal for cyclists to be on the sidewalk. But when they ride on the road, many cyclists hug too close to the parked cars, putting themselves in danger, Henderson said. They should be taking that first driving lane, which is what the city’s new “sharrows” or shared-use lanes indicate on the roads where they’ve been installed.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/healt...803/story.html

  19. #219
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    83rd doesn't work as well for a bike lane because that really only works well west of Gateway. What if you're traveling further east or coming from the east? Crossing at Gateway is slow. Further east you start getting a lot of stop signs alternating between the street vs the ave.

    People want to be on Whyte. Why force them off?

    The real issue is the tracks. They pinch all that traffic onto Whyte when it could be further south.

    Edit: to add to this. Why would we not make Whyte a more complete street? It's where people want to be. Reduce the on street parking or traffic lanes, add bike lanes. Wider sidewalks too.
    Last edited by Channing; 28-08-2012 at 08:16 AM.

  20. #220
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Absolutely 82nd ave should be made much more bike friendly. It's an ideal cycling route E-W south of the river, you can get all the way from 50th st to Groat Road pretty efficiently. Moving cycling routes to side roads south of 82 is doing more of the exact thing we've always done... make cycling routes extremely slow and inconvenient for cyclists.
    Parkdale

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    You're absolutely right Mike. Well put.

    I'd like to see road safety taught in junior high school since it's such a big part of people's lives.
    My junior high taught this... Not sure if any others do or did. They had a bike day at school before summer break and taught how to ride properly and the basics of road riding safely

  22. #222

    Default

    So let me get this straight. The pickup truck responsible for the cyclists death had those typical huge windows, and was illegally parked too far from the curb on a main crowded thoroughfare. Was this driver even sober or just plain stupid? Most people with vehicles taking up more width drive and park accordingly. Somebody not able to do that shouldn't be anywhere near the ave, or driving such a vehicle either.

    What happened as well with the need to have exterior large windows in foldin position while parked. Decades ago this was law and was enforced.

    This is so avoidable.

    ps its also very possible the cyclist was distracted by somebody opening their driver side door while he was passing. Which happens continuously on Edmonton's busy streets. People just don't look. Just throw their door wide open.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  23. #223
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    ^all cyclists should practice this before they ride at least once: park a car, open the door wide open. Position yourself how far away youd want to be away from a open door. (the distance will surprise you)

    That's where you should ride past a row of parked cars. And no weaving back towards the curb if there is a 2-3 car parked car gap.

  24. #224
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,142

    Default

    ^ That's fine and dandy if you are cycling down a residential street past a row of parked cars. But if a cyclist was to ride down Whyte, positioned to avoid open doors from parked cars, he might as well hog the whole right-side lane because there is not enough space between parked cars and the traffic.

  25. #225
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    he might as well hog the whole right-side lane because there is not enough space between parked cars and the traffic.
    On a road like 82 ave, that's exactly what the cyclist should do. When showing cyclists how to ride in traffic, I've always instructed riders to take a dominant lane position... ride just right of the centre of the lane and force the driver to pass on the left, becuase then the driver is actually seeing you and making an effort to go around. It's absolutely the safest way to ride on a street like Whyte.
    Parkdale

  26. #226
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    83rd doesn't work as well for a bike lane because that really only works well west of Gateway. What if you're traveling further east or coming from the east? Crossing at Gateway is slow. Further east you start getting a lot of stop signs alternating between the street vs the ave.

    People want to be on Whyte. Why force them off?

    The real issue is the tracks. They pinch all that traffic onto Whyte when it could be further south.

    Edit: to add to this. Why would we not make Whyte a more complete street? It's where people want to be. Reduce the on street parking or traffic lanes, add bike lanes. Wider sidewalks too.
    Bike lanes on Whyte would be great, but parking and/or traffic lanes would need to be sacrificed. I agree about the tracks - the sooner the CPR moves to their new southside yard the better. Connecting some more southerly avenues would cut the reliance on 82 Av, mitigating the loss of traffic lanes.

    On the other hand, 81 Av and 83 Av could also be good bike routes too. I used to cycle from Ritchie to U of A - I took 79 Av west to 101 St, then north to 83 Av and continued west on 83 Av. The wait to cross gateway was no longer than waiting for the light on Whyte. Better snow clearing and removing some stop signs are all that is needed to make 81 Av and 83 Av work for cyclists.

  27. #227
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    he might as well hog the whole right-side lane because there is not enough space between parked cars and the traffic.
    On a road like 82 ave, that's exactly what the cyclist should do. When showing cyclists how to ride in traffic, I've always instructed riders to take a dominant lane position... ride just right of the centre of the lane and force the driver to pass on the left, becuase then the driver is actually seeing you and making an effort to go around. It's absolutely the safest way to ride on a street like Whyte.
    Exactly.

  28. #228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Parking rules should not be based on how close your wheels are to the curb, but how far from the curb the farthest part of your vehicle is. Instead of the near wheel being within 50 cm of the curb, your driver side mirror would need to be no more than 2.6 m (maximum legal vehicle width) from the curb. I once got a parking ticket for parking a Geo Metro 5 cm too far from the curb. I was between two legally parked pickup trucks that both extended further into the traffic lane.

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    he might as well hog the whole right-side lane because there is not enough space between parked cars and the traffic.
    On a road like 82 ave, that's exactly what the cyclist should do. When showing cyclists how to ride in traffic, I've always instructed riders to take a dominant lane position... ride just right of the centre of the lane and force the driver to pass on the left, becuase then the driver is actually seeing you and making an effort to go around. It's absolutely the safest way to ride on a street like Whyte.
    The speed on traffic on whyte should really shouldn't be much faster than a bike anyways. Lower the speed limit and bike riders should be in the traffic lane.

    IMO
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    83rd doesn't work as well for a bike lane because that really only works well west of Gateway. What if you're traveling further east or coming from the east? Crossing at Gateway is slow. Further east you start getting a lot of stop signs alternating between the street vs the ave.

    People want to be on Whyte. Why force them off?

    The real issue is the tracks. They pinch all that traffic onto Whyte when it could be further south.

    Edit: to add to this. Why would we not make Whyte a more complete street? It's where people want to be. Reduce the on street parking or traffic lanes, add bike lanes. Wider sidewalks too.
    Bike lanes on Whyte would be great, but parking and/or traffic lanes would need to be sacrificed. I agree about the tracks - the sooner the CPR moves to their new southside yard the better. Connecting some more southerly avenues would cut the reliance on 82 Av, mitigating the loss of traffic lanes.

    On the other hand, 81 Av and 83 Av could also be good bike routes too. I used to cycle from Ritchie to U of A - I took 79 Av west to 101 St, then north to 83 Av and continued west on 83 Av. The wait to cross gateway was no longer than waiting for the light on Whyte. Better snow clearing and removing some stop signs are all that is needed to make 81 Av and 83 Av work for cyclists.
    When I travel from Bonnie Doon to University I always take 83 ave or 81 ave and avoid Whyte. Too much aggravation and stress to be always aware if motorists are aware of me on a bike. Usually I am faster than the cars when travelling down the clogged traffic between 99st. and Gateway.

    If I have to, I will dismount and walk my bicycle at the pedestrian lights to cross Gateway at the Strat Holtel. It is still less anxiety and I am on my way at a leisurely pace.
    Last edited by North Guy66; 28-08-2012 at 12:59 PM.

  31. #231
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Parking rules should not be based on how close your wheels are to the curb, but how far from the curb the farthest part of your vehicle is. Instead of the near wheel being within 50 cm of the curb, your driver side mirror would need to be no more than 2.6 m (maximum legal vehicle width) from the curb. I once got a parking ticket for parking a Geo Metro 5 cm too far from the curb. I was between two legally parked pickup trucks that both extended further into the traffic lane.
    Great point. Imagine a pickup truck hauling a 5th wheel having those telescopic mirrors installed on the doors. His tire could be rubbing the curb but the mirror will still be extended into the driving lane.

  32. #232
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    The Case for Separated Bike Lanes

    The other day, Doug Gordon decided to try a little bike lane experiment. Gordon, author of the Brooklyn Spoke blog, placed red plastic Solo cups (yes, the ones you use when drinking from a keg) along the edge of a painted bike lane that is often blocked by parked livery cars and other drivers.

  33. #233

    Default

    ^ lol I saw this about a week ago.. but I was gettting enough flack for posting bike infrastructure stuff..

    I am glad someone else did it!

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  34. #234
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    While I certainly appreciate the paths and bike boxes make many cyclists more comfortable, and may help with making them more visible to drivers, it doesn't do a lot for me.

    When I come to a red light at an intersection I pull into the middle of the lane so I'm both highly visible and nobody is tempted to squeeze me out. I've found that hugging the curb at an intersection makes it harder for drivers to see me.

    So, if I'm the first at the intersection, I'm usually right in the middle of the lane. Often, as a courtesy, I'll move further to the left so cars can go past me on the right and make a right turn. I get a lot of drivers waving thanks, or even rolling down their window to do so.

    If there are other cars already waiting at the light I pull into the middle of the lane so a driver behind me can easily see me, and the driver in front of me can see me in their rear view mirror.

    In other words, I act like a vehicle. I've never had a problem from the drivers when I do that. Being visible, and predictable, is the best way for me to keep safe.
    This is exactly what I do. I really dislike and do not feel safe against the curb with right turning traffic. Big trucks in particular sometimes crease the curb with their back tires making it a very unsafe place to be.

    I have never felt in danger taking the lane at a red light and drivers seem to appreciate that they know exactly where I am and don't have to worry about accidentally hitting me. Frequently when I move to the left to let someone turn I'll get a smile and wave from the driver.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  35. #235
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^all cyclists should practice this before they ride at least once: park a car, open the door wide open. Position yourself how far away youd want to be away from a open door. (the distance will surprise you)

    That's where you should ride past a row of parked cars. And no weaving back towards the curb if there is a 2-3 car parked car gap.
    This. ++

    Never ride close to parked cars. You're much safer in the lane where you can't be hit by doors or mirrors, and where moving vehicles won't try to squeeze past you. I've ridden this way on Whyte Avenue and it's not hard to move with traffic so you're not usually slowing anybody down.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  36. #236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Someone should probably tell the people at Transportation about this apparently obvious fact:







    All images from http://thecharrette.ca/2011/09/21/76...st-bike-lanes/

  37. #237
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    One of the reason's I don't really like the idea of trying to put dedicated bike lanes on streets like these. The first and third pictures are bad ideas; the second picture is actually instruction for the cyclist to use the lane and is fine. For example you see these markers along 127th street opposite the contraflow bike lane.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  38. #238
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    ^ my problem with the second picture is that I see no reason for there to be a line. Remove the line and just have the sharrows - like westbound on Victoria Promenade, or throughout Garneau - and you are telling cyclists to take the lane. Putting that line there will encourage many cyclists to hug it, regardless of where the sharrow symbol is actually located.

    But all around, a totally half-assed and unsafe implementation.

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    It's a reasonable point and I hadn't thought of that.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  40. #240
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    This is my pet peeve:



    &^%&^ing curb extensions forcing me to merge with automobile traffic when I should be able to stay in my own space out of everyone's way.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    While I certainly appreciate the paths and bike boxes make many cyclists more comfortable, and may help with making them more visible to drivers, it doesn't do a lot for me.

    When I come to a red light at an intersection I pull into the middle of the lane so I'm both highly visible and nobody is tempted to squeeze me out. I've found that hugging the curb at an intersection makes it harder for drivers to see me.

    So, if I'm the first at the intersection, I'm usually right in the middle of the lane. Often, as a courtesy, I'll move further to the left so cars can go past me on the right and make a right turn. I get a lot of drivers waving thanks, or even rolling down their window to do so.

    If there are other cars already waiting at the light I pull into the middle of the lane so a driver behind me can easily see me, and the driver in front of me can see me in their rear view mirror.

    In other words, I act like a vehicle. I've never had a problem from the drivers when I do that. Being visible, and predictable, is the best way for me to keep safe.
    This is exactly what I do. I really dislike and do not feel safe against the curb with right turning traffic. Big trucks in particular sometimes crease the curb with their back tires making it a very unsafe place to be.

    I have never felt in danger taking the lane at a red light and drivers seem to appreciate that they know exactly where I am and don't have to worry about accidentally hitting me. Frequently when I move to the left to let someone turn I'll get a smile and wave from the driver.
    This doesn't make sense to me.

    if you're in any danger of being hit by anybody curve jumping you're stopped way too forward in the intersection. I make sure I'm not stopped in the croswalk ever. I would say I'm at least 15-20 feet from the curb when waiting for light to change. I'm also Right butt to the curb. My right foot would be on the sidewalk with tires inches away from curb. Allowing cars room. I'm not blocking anybody and I'm visible because I position myself behind the first vehicle but kind of in front of the second one. I make eye contact indicating I'm going straight through if stop time allows. No big deal if I have to wait for some cars to turn right at a major intersection. People seem to appreciate that I'm so close to the curb.

    Also, with your lane positioning what happens when vehicles are running THROUGH on green, i.e. going straight, and your positioning to let cars turn right to the right of you has you in the middle of two through lanes of traffic. Maybe I'm not understanding but that leads to a precarious situation in busy traffic and with everybody wondering about your lane positioning at that point.
    Last edited by Replacement; 28-08-2012 at 06:55 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  42. #242
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This doesn't make sense to me.

    if you're in any danger of being hit by anybody curve jumping you're stopped way too forward in the intersection. I make sure I'm not stopped in the croswalk ever. I would say I'm at least 15-20 feet from the curb when waiting for light to change. I'm also Right butt to the curb. My right foot would be on the sidewalk with tires inches away from curb. Allowing cars room. I'm not blocking anybody and I'm visible because I position myself behind the first vehicle but kind of in front of the second one. I make eye contact indicating I'm going straight through if stop time allows. No big deal if I have to wait for some cars to turn right at a major intersection. People seem to appreciate that I'm so close to the curb.

    Also, with your lane positioning what happens when vehicles are running THROUGH on green, i.e. going straight, and your positioning to let cars turn right to the right of you has you in the middle of two through lanes of traffic. Maybe I'm not understanding but that leads to a precarious situation in busy traffic and with everybody wondering about your lane positioning at that point.
    Your positioning sounds good to me but honestly I rarely see people stop that far back. For me it would be annoyance to wait for the traffic to clear before I went forward through the intersection but if you're comfortable with it then it sounds like a good method.

    For the way I do it I always keep an eye on what the person behind is doing. If they're going straight I sit right in front of them. When the light goes green I start and move enough to the right to allow them to pass. Often there are right turning people followed by someone going straight. Because I don't need to move all the way to the centre to allow room for the right turners I'm still in front of the drivers side of cars going straight.

    I've honestly never felt unsafe in this position as the drivers always know exactly where I am.
    Last edited by Paul Turnbull; 28-08-2012 at 07:23 PM. Reason: grammar and clarity

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This doesn't make sense to me.

    if you're in any danger of being hit by anybody curve jumping you're stopped way too forward in the intersection. I make sure I'm not stopped in the croswalk ever. I would say I'm at least 15-20 feet from the curb when waiting for light to change. I'm also Right butt to the curb. My right foot would be on the sidewalk with tires inches away from curb. Allowing cars room. I'm not blocking anybody and I'm visible because I position myself behind the first vehicle but kind of in front of the second one. I make eye contact indicating I'm going straight through if stop time allows. No big deal if I have to wait for some cars to turn right at a major intersection. People seem to appreciate that I'm so close to the curb.

    Also, with your lane positioning what happens when vehicles are running THROUGH on green, i.e. going straight, and your positioning to let cars turn right to the right of you has you in the middle of two through lanes of traffic. Maybe I'm not understanding but that leads to a precarious situation in busy traffic and with everybody wondering about your lane positioning at that point.
    Your positioning sounds good to me but honestly I rarely see people stop that far back. For me it would be annoyance to wait for the traffic to clear before I went forward through the intersection but if you're comfortable with it then it sounds like a good method.

    For the way I do it I always keep an eye on what the person behind is doing. If they're going straight I sit right in front of them. When the light goes green I start and move enough to the right to allow them to pass. Often there are right turning people followed by someone going straight. Because I don't need to move all the way to the centre to allow room for the right turners I'm still in front of the drivers side of cars going straight.

    I've honestly never felt unsafe in this position as the drivers always know exactly where I am.
    Thanks for clarifying. I'm just putting driving safe ideas out there because a lot of people lurk these boards and I have a lot of experience cycling. We all do things slightly different but playing safe is the name of the game. So I think these exchanges are a good thing.

    Just one thing though. If you're pulling left towards the center to let somebody turn right and they either had the signal on erroneously or they change their mind and go straight it leaves you in the middle of the road like I say and could be a bad position on a busy road. Don't infer the drivers will behave as expected.
    ftr I've done it both ways and staying in lanes or staying close to curb(and depending on where and when) and whatever the person is most comfortable with probably works out the best. After some bad experiences its next to the curb for me.
    As soon as the light has turned green I'm looking behind me and seeing if right signals are on. I time it so that I cross a busy intersection at the same time that a car is going straight through. This also prevents somebody slamming into me making a left hand turn from the opposite direction. I make sure the car I'm beside is going straight through. They become my linebacker.
    Last edited by Replacement; 28-08-2012 at 09:25 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  44. #244
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    If hugging the curb works for you, then that's fine. But I'm also an experienced cyclist, and don't want to misinform anyone looking here for advice.

    I try to practice "vehicular cycling", which entails riding your bike as if it were a vehicle. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wish everyone did. Hugging the curb is a violation of the traffic safety rules taught by every cycling organization I'm familiar with. Not hugging the curb is, literally, Traffic Safety 101.

    "I was also a “curb hugger,” the cyclist who does not have an appropriate sense of belonging on the road. I felt and acted like a trespasser. The TS101 class taught me that this apprehensiveness — just like recklessness — actually makes me less safe on a bicycle."

    Cheers
    Last edited by Jimbo; 28-08-2012 at 11:58 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    If hugging the curb works for you, then that's fine. But I'm also an experienced cyclist, and don't want to misinform anyone looking here for advice.

    I try to practice "vehicular cycling", which entails riding your bike as if it were a vehicle. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I wish everyone did. Hugging the curb is a violation of the traffic safety rules taught by every cycling organization I'm familiar with. Not hugging the curb is, literally, Traffic Safety 101.

    "I was also a “curb hugger,” the cyclist who does not have an appropriate sense of belonging on the road. I felt and acted like a trespasser. The TS101 class taught me that this apprehensiveness — just like recklessness — actually makes me less safe on a bicycle."

    Cheers
    heh,

    We'll agree to disagree.

    In this day of road rage, distracted drivers and people slamming right into stopped vehicles I don't think being directly in the laneway is the place to be. If people have trouble noticing vehicles in front of them a bike is easier to not spot. I like my chances better on the edge of the road where theres less chances vehicles wander. If they're teaching different now I think its overthinking. Away from the direct path of vehicles is arguably the safer place to be.

    I did a little searching and would say its not as simple as you say as the links indicate.

    http://www.ibiketo.ca/blog/taking-la...e-things-worse

    The phrase, I believe, originally came from motorcycle training. But as applied to cycling, it doesn't make the same sense as it does in motorcycling. The "primary position" cannot be the primary position for cyclists on roads where the speeds are almost always far in excess of most people's top cycling speed. Some fit, young cyclists can cycle at 20 mph on the flat, but few of our roads have a 20mph limit, and in the more normal 30-limit urban areas, typical speeds are up to 45, in reality, where the roads can take it. So even fast cyclists stand little chance of maintaining the primary position most of the time. A more normal cycling speed, even with the current cadre of cyclists, would be 10–15mph. For them, in being sold this "primary position" theory, they are clearly being sold a lie.
    Fast suburban but narrow lanes
    In Toronto's suburbs most arterial streets have high average speeds of greater than 60 km/h. Many of these suburban arterial lanes are narrow. It rarely make sense to take the lane on these streets. The high speeds and the fact that no driver is expecting to see a slow cyclist means that taking the lane can be inviting danger. In fact, CAN-BIKE teaches that on fast arterial streets that cyclists should actually ride close to the curb - 1/3 metre instead of the typical 1 metre.
    http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pub...ction3.0.shtml


    In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it. On high-speed roads, it is not safe to take the whole lane. To move left in a lane, should check, signal, left and shoulder check again then move to the centre of the lane when it is safe to do so.
    I know you're decided but I'll let the readers judge for themselves what is right for them.

    I will point out a couple of things. If a cyclist is not keeping up to the speed of traffic it is generally not advised to "take the lane". The other being that on wide enough laneways(almost all of what I use here and theres plenty of them via Millwoods) is the one meter from curb rule can generally apply, as it does with many city streets here. Edmonton road lanes tend to be very generously spaced as compared to other jurisdictions. So the conversation should be about what makes most sense here in Edmonton. I should mention I keep within that meter generally except where curbside road is in very poor condition. But I also reavalute taking that route again if it is the case.

    Finally, I will clarify that on busy arterials with clogged traffic, narrow lanes, and with parked vehicles I will definitely "take the lane" in that situation for instance on Whyte Ave. Only a complete ***** behind me is going to be inattentive to me taking the lane on a clogged, narrow arterial.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-08-2012 at 07:43 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  46. #246
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    I think we're mostly on the same page. One meter is about right. That's not hugging the curb. And of course if there are cars parked along the road, it's safest to stay clear of the door zone, which, on Whyte ave anyway, puts you pretty much in the middle of the lane anyway.

    Of course on a high speed, narrow road (like a freeway) you shouldn't be taking the lane. That's called being a jerk, and an *****. I haven't found any high speed roads that are that narrow here in Edmonton. I avoid freeways anyway.

    The most important thing you can do to keep yourself safe is to be seen, and to ride predictably, according to the laws. I'd also add getting to know the roads and picking the right route.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 29-08-2012 at 01:47 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  47. #247

    Default Cyclist Town Hall Meeting: Whyte Avenue Corridor

    Did anyone here go to the town hall meeting about the Whyte Avenue Corridor? I wanted to go but I had to work. I just wanted to know how it went and if there were any plans to move this project forward. I found this very good presentation http://edmontonbikes.ca/cyclist-town...-presentation/ about it online, but I was hoping to hear some more information about the plan to make it a reality.

    Also, does anyone know what the long-term plan is for the 102 ave. bike route downtown? I use this route frequently and I would love to see it improved.

  48. #248
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    I was there. Very good. Ben Henderson and Don Iveson were both there. There was a bit of a Whyte Ave. vs 83rd Ave discussion. The Pros of 83rd being it can be approved, funded and done in the next 2 years, where Whyte Ave might take longer and never be approved.

    There was a sheet passed out asking who wanted to sign up for further updates and to be part of a potential work group. If you want to join, I'd say to try and get in touch with Conrad Nobert (he organized it) or Ducan Kinney and/or Chris Chan who are with EBC.

    Don Iveson also mentioned that for 102nd ave, there is talk about doing the separated bike work there NOW, instead of waiting for the LRT. I heard talk of a town hall regarding that as well, but I'm not sure. Emailing Don might get you that info.

  49. #249

    Default

    Next year is the hope for 102 ave. the ocl has been actively perusing this
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  50. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I was there. Very good. Ben Henderson and Don Iveson were both there. There was a bit of a Whyte Ave. vs 83rd Ave discussion. The Pros of 83rd being it can be approved, funded and done in the next 2 years, where Whyte Ave might take longer and never be approved.

    There was a sheet passed out asking who wanted to sign up for further updates and to be part of a potential work group. If you want to join, I'd say to try and get in touch with Conrad Nobert (he organized it) or Ducan Kinney and/or Chris Chan who are with EBC.

    Don Iveson also mentioned that for 102nd ave, there is talk about doing the separated bike work there NOW, instead of waiting for the LRT. I heard talk of a town hall regarding that as well, but I'm not sure. Emailing Don might get you that info.
    Thanks for the info Channing. I am sure that the Whyte ave. vs. 83rd ave. discussion was quite lively. My personal preference would be a bike lane on Whyte, but at the same time, if something can be constructed in the next 2 years on 83rd, it may be a good option.

    I'm guessing there will be some resistance from the business community about removing parking on Whyte ave. to construct a bike lane. I think in the long-term this would have a negligible effect on business, if any, considering that the neighbourhood is already very walkable and served well by transit. In my personal experience, when I do drive to Old Strathcona I rarely park on Whyte ave. Anyway, I hope some momentum starts to build around this project.

    Do you know if there are any preliminary plans available online with regard to the 102 ave. project? I'll e-mail Councillor Iveson about it too.

  51. #251
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    For those interested in the 2013 bike route plans, they are available to see here:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ke-routes.aspx

    Please review, and provide feedback if you wish as well at that link. There is a link to a survey there to give opinions on routes and proposed changes.

  52. #252
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Edmonton’s bike-lane construction plans are becoming a nightmare that is pushing cars off the road, says Mayor Stephen Mandel.

    “Not that they’re not a good idea, but it just seems someone behind your scenes out there has just decided we’re going to eliminate all vehicles and only have bikes.”

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...595/story.html

    This is why I hope Mandel doesn't run again. He's becoming senile before our very eyes. Bikes pushing cars off the road? In Edmonton? Has he been to cities that are actually conducive to cycling as a means of transport?

  53. #253
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    I would be supportive of the bike lanes if they would actually repave the roads that they are putting the bike lanes on. They did one in my neighborhood and they just painted the lines right over top of the potholes, huge cracks from the frost heaves and "man holes" that are sticking up 3-4" above the road surface.

  54. #254
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    I would be supportive of the bike lanes if they would actually repave the roads that they are putting the bike lanes on. They did one in my neighborhood and they just painted the lines right over top of the potholes, huge cracks from the frost heaves and "man holes" that are sticking up 3-4" above the road surface.
    Good point. I almost think they shouldn't bother unless there is a physical barrier between the bike path and the street. Do it right or don't do it at all.

  55. #255
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Part of the work this year is re-doing the lanes where they did re-surfacing last year. I agree, if the road has to be redone, why paint the lines? No one will use it anyway.

  56. #256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    I would be supportive of the bike lanes if they would actually repave the roads that they are putting the bike lanes on. They did one in my neighborhood and they just painted the lines right over top of the potholes, huge cracks from the frost heaves and "man holes" that are sticking up 3-4" above the road surface.
    Good point. I almost think they shouldn't bother unless there is a physical barrier between the bike path and the street. Do it right or don't do it at all.
    Not every bike lane needs to be segregated but key ones do!

    Further to that people need to start understanding that they don't own the parking infront of their house.. it's not "theirs"
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  57. #257
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Not every bike lane needs to be segregated but key ones do!

    Further to that people need to start understanding that they don't own the parking infront of their house.. it's not "theirs"
    I'm just not convinced that painting the lane alone is worth the expense and hassle. I would rather the budget go to fewer separated bike lanes that people feel they can safely use for commuting purposes, than a bunch of painted lanes that are underused.

  58. #258

    Default

    ^ Expense... it's not really that expensive...

    It's proven that bike lanes (Even ones that simply are painted on with no segrigation) are effective.

    Further to that this is a progression. You just don't pop down a segregated bike lane and become Holland.

    The bike lane program ignored the area where it made the most sense have this infrastructure, didn't do it right and they tried to do it too fast
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  59. #259
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Further to that people need to start understanding that they don't own the parking infront of their house.. it's not "theirs"
    Completely agree!

  60. #260
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Further to that this is a progression. You just don't pop down a segregated bike lane and become Holland.
    That makes no sense. Why invest in a half-assed band-aid solution? I'm saying put separated bike lines where it makes sense to do so, even if we start with just a couple. Then roll them out across the city as they become more widely used.

  61. #261
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    For 76 Av, the road is wide enough west of Mill Creek ravine to accommodate everyone already, without reducing street parking. It is narrower east of the ravine, but there is plenty of room to widen the road in the future if the adjacent property owners want to shrink their huge front yards to accommodate street parking.

    I am kind of disappointed by the cycle route expansion plan as a whole though. The path paralleling the NE LRT is still shown ending at 66 St, with no indication that an extension to Claireview is coming any time soon. All the LRT lines should have full parallel bike paths, not just the south line.

  62. #262
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^Yep, actual bike lanes should be protected. For places where there isn't the bike traffic to justify one, then the solution should be slower traffic flow so that bikes can mix with cars safely, not a wider street with a painted line. The lack of parked cars could encourage faster driving, and with the line drivers will just get angry about cyclists on what they think sould be the car-free side, even when the cyclists have a good reason, like potholes, puddles or big piles of snow.

  63. #263
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ....
    I am kind of disappointed by the cycle route expansion plan as a whole though. The path paralleling the NE LRT is still shown ending at 66 St, with no indication that an extension to Claireview is coming any time soon. All the LRT lines should have full parallel bike paths, not just the south line.
    I agree, the plan seems kind-of patchwork, just putting lanes where they may fit, rather than creating a real network.

  64. #264
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^^ Mixed use on a narrow road is great when there isn't a lot of car traffic either, but it is not practical on a collector road like 76 Av. I have no problem cycling in a painted bike lane next to heavy traffic driving at 50-60 km/h, but only if snow is fully removed and large potholes are fixed promptly. Unfortunately, lack of these services makes our painted bike lanes useless much of the time.

  65. #265

    Default

    It's all a matter of slowly getting Edmontonians to get used to the fact that segregated bike lanes will be a possibility, and to promote more cyclists to use infrastructure. With increased use, public support grows, then monies can be allotted to dedicated bike lanes. Many Edmontonians argue that dedicated lanes are not necessary for a small percentage of users. This way lanes, and some parking, are being maintained (76 ave example) while bike lanes are noticeable, safer, and provide good connections to major nodes, all while showing cyclists that the city cares, and promotes the use of cycling further.

    Numbers went out a while back that cycling has doubled? since 2009 bike plan. I forget where I saw the numbers, but it was close to that. So it does work and has changed the environment of Whyte in an astonishing way. Three years ago it was easy to find a parking spot for my bike, now my on-street bike rack at 104 st (only good for two bikes) has five or seven bikes around it on trees and parking meters.

    When demand increases, so will segregated lanes. IMO
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  66. #266

    Default

    Richie should be reduced to a 40km/h speed limit anyway. I drive 48km on 76 ave just to watch headlights practically slam into my rear bumper. This is my neighbourhood, devil, slow down I tell him, but sadly on my bike it's not the same.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  67. #267
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^^ I'm not a big fan of the new bike racks. They're pretty, but they lack functionality. The old green ones could accommodate 3-4 bikes on each side, while the new stainless steel ones can only fit two.

    ^ Minor residential roads all over the city should be 40 km/h and no wider than 10 m, but I wouldn't put 76 Av in that category. It is a collector road and as such should be wide enough to accommodate cars and cyclists in separate spaces and the speed limit should stay at 50 km/h. If a 40 km/h limit is ever introduced in my neighborhood, I would want our collector roads (95 St and 115 Av) to stay at 50 km/h.

  68. #268
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta Ave
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ I'm not a big fan of the new bike racks. They're pretty, but they lack functionality. The old green ones could accommodate 3-4 bikes on each side, while the new stainless steel ones can only fit two.
    did you see the gang racks used for the bike parking pilot project in old strathcona last year? they fit 8 and are designed for higher bike traffic locations, including portability and flexibility of being on street or concrete


  69. #269

    Default

    Exactly, Pilot Project. I busted my backside to the OSBA and city council for ages to keep the green bike racks or something new. The silver ones can only hold two bikes - three if you know them - and we have to resort to walking around looking for spaces, or locking up all over the place. I loved those racks because it made bike parking extremely visible, took away a parking stall - holy cow! - and provided the perfect amount of stalls. They were always occupied, and during the day, usually packed.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  70. #270
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ke-routes.aspx


    95 Avenue
    95 Avenue (145 St to 189 St)
    145 Street (95 Ave to 96 Ave)
    96 Avenue (142 St to 145 St)
    142 Street Service Roads (96 Ave to Summit Dr)

    Neighbourhoods
    La Perle
    Belmead
    Terra Losa
    Summerlea
    Glenwood
    West Meadowlark
    Meadowlark Park
    West Jasper Place
    Sherwood
    Crestwood
    Parkview


    81 Street
    81 Street (119 Ave to Yellowhead Tr)
    119 Avenue (76 St to 82 St)
    78 Street (117 Ave to 119 Ave)

    Neighbourhoods
    Elmwood Park
    Eastwood
    Parkdale



    Saddleback

    112 Street (Saddleback Rd to 30 Ave)
    31 Avenue (30 Ave to 113 St)
    113 Street (31 Ave to 34 Ave)
    Saddleback Road (111 St to 112 St)
    25 Avenue (Saddleback Rd to 119 Street)

    Neighbourhoods
    Sweetgrass
    Blue Quill


    115/116 Street
    116 Street (71 Ave to 73 Ave)
    73 Avenue (115 St to 116 St)
    115 Street (73 Ave to University Ave)

    Neighbourhoods
    McKernan
    Belgravia
    U of A


    114/115 Street
    114 Street (34 Ave to 44a Ave)
    115 Street (46 Ave to 60 Ave)

    Neighbourhoods
    Lendrum Place
    Malmo Plains
    Royal Gardens
    Greenfield


    106 Street and 40 Avenue
    106 Street (34 Ave to 51 Ave)
    40 Avenue (106 St to 119 St)

    Neighbourhoods
    Malmo
    Royal Gardens
    Empire park
    Rideau Park
    Duggan
    Royal Gardens
    Rideau Park
    Greenfield
    Duggan


    76 Avenue and 100 Street
    76 Avenue (78 St to 100 St)
    100 Street (76 Ave to Saskatchewan Dr)

    Neighbourhoods
    Strathcona
    Ritchie
    King Edward Park
    Avonmore


    97 Street
    97 Street (63 Ave to 82 Ave)

    Neighbourhoods
    Hazeldean
    Ritchie


    132 Avenue
    132 Avenue (82 St to 91 St)

    Neighbourhoods
    Glengarry
    Killarney
    Parkdale

  71. #271

    Default

    Hey everyone I just wanted to make sure that it is known that you can request the single Q bike racks in front of your building. The form can be found in the link below. And the best part is that it is free!

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ycle-rack.aspx

  72. #272

    Default

    The system works! Thanks amigo.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  73. #273

    Default

    I think if the City of Edmonton (or any other city) starts to design roads and thoroughfares to cater to bicycles they should start to licence riders. Make it fair, if you are going to use roads you should be charged to do so. If the infrastructure is going to be changed to suit the needs of bicycle riders it should be time for them to pay for that privilege. If they want the same treatment as vehicles they should be licenced and maybe insured along with it. Put plates on bikes so if there are infractions you can take down a plate number or get a picture of it. If bike riders want a bigger say in how the province runs it's roadways then let them pay like vehicle owners have to.
    __________________
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I think if the City of Edmonton (or any other city) starts to design roads and thoroughfares to cater to bicycles they should start to licence riders. Make it fair, if you are going to use roads you should be charged to do so. If the infrastructure is going to be changed to suit the needs of bicycle riders it should be time for them to pay for that privilege. If they want the same treatment as vehicles they should be licenced and maybe insured along with it. Put plates on bikes so if there are infractions you can take down a plate number or get a picture of it. If bike riders want a bigger say in how the province runs it's roadways then let them pay like vehicle owners have to.
    __________________
    You should be careful what you wish for if you're talking about paying your way. A full user pay system might cost drivers much more than what they pay now, especially when adding in the costs to health and the environment from co2 emissions, pollution, etc. You're forcing me and everyone else to breath your exhaust, and it's not good for my health.

    It's been said many times, but I guess it bears repeating - cyclists already do pay for the roads, with their tax dollars, just like drivers. Most cyclists are also drivers.

    And, again ad nauseum, bike licensing is an expensive program that doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't work.

    - The difficulty in keeping a database complete and current
    - The difficulty in licensing children, given that they ride bikes too
    - Licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.

    Does anybody really think the police have the time to check bikes for licenses if they are on the street? Have you considered how hard it would be to read? It's expensive, time consuming, uses up resources much better used elsewhere, and accomplishes nothing, but accomplishing anything isn't really the point of the anti-cyclist anyway.

    There's a reason insurers rarely offer insurance for riding your bike on the streets. It's not worth it. Think about it. Liability insurance? Really? If you check your auto insurance, it's likely you're covered on your bike as well.

    "Because we drivers have to" is a silly reason to want cyclists to require licenses and insurance. It's just resentment masquerading as concern, like much of the anti-cycling argument.

    It's too easy to ignore a central fact - more people on bikes and fewer on cars would be good for everybody, including drivers who never get out of their cars. I think many of the drivers who hate cyclists resent the attention they get for genuinely being good for society.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 18-02-2013 at 03:25 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  75. #275

    Default

    Indeed, there are always two sides to a coin. I agree, it would be hard for police to enforce cyclists on the road. It seems rather petty that they should go after someone going five miles an hour down a residential street on a sunny Sunday afternoon ride. Then again, these weekend warriors that take to their bikes on their days off are probably the ones that meander along without a care in the world, oblivious of what is around them. I have said it before, the guys/gals that dress for cycling all year round and usually have fairly expensive bikes are normally the ones that follow the rules of the road to the letter. They take their bike riding very seriously. I have been educated by reading threads on cyclists and I do believe they have a right to get from A to B just like any other form of transportation. I still believe it would be prudent for cyclists to carry insurance or to check their house insurance to see just exactly is covered on their policy. If cities are seeing rises in cyclists and are changing the infrastructure to fit cyclists needs then a form of licencing should go directly to M.V. Branch to pay for some of these road changes. Some may say this would be a cash grab others would say it's just being fair to all commuters.
    Here are two articles that are directly related to cyclists.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15892074

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...lists-law.html
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  76. #276
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    The guy who wrote the 2nd article sounds a little, ahem, crazy.

    Cyclists pay, through taxes, like everyone else. The argument can be made they pay more than their share.

    Bike lanes aren't for me. They're for cyclists less comfortable on the road, or out for a leisurely ride, maybe with kids. Bike lanes also serve to remind drivers cyclists belong on the road.

    I'm not familiar with the 76th ave route, so can't speak to specifics. I'd sure rather a bike lane in front of my house than a dirty feeder road. I feel for those losing parking. I just think more cyclists and pedestrians, and slower traffic, make for a healthier neighbourhood - a real community with character as unique as the people who live there.

    I'm not anti-driver. Just about everyone I know drives, including friends, family, and my partner. It's expensive (payments, parking, insurance, maintenance, tickets, repairs, gas, taxes, etc,) and getting more expensive all the time. Traffic can suck, parking is a problem, bad drivers abound, road construction, poor conditions, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes it doesn't seem fair.

    Then there's the sanctimonious cyclist, free as a bird, flaunting the rules, getting in the way, forcing drivers to be alert, and generally doing whatever he or she wants, smugly righteous in their "saving the world" hero personas. If traffic's backed up, they can hop on the sidewalk, or cut across a field, or even get off their bike and walk it home. And we're laying out the "green carpet" for them, with paths and lanes, at considerable expense. They don't have to pay anything.

    Except taxes of course, and taxes are what pay for the roads.

    I see where some resentment comes from. The cycling milieu is like the wild west - there's yer law-abidin' bunch, and yer outa control bunch, with all kinds between. We don't tend to notice the good ones - cyclist, or driver, and they don't make for interesting discussion.

    There's a much deeper resentment bordering on hatred I'm seeing all too often, in people like Rob Ford. Where Kerry Diotte may fan the populist flames, which tends to bring out the crazies, Rob Ford is one of the crazies. I don't know where that kind of antipathy comes from, maybe being picked on or bullied, but there's a real misguided sense of injustice that goes along with it.

    In fairness I see some of the same thing on the other side of the cyclist-vs-driver debate, but where the cyclist advocates know they are a minority, the anti-cyclists I see think they're the majority.

    The most heated debate happens the extremes, and can drown out the middle ground. We have a pretty good idea how many automobiles we have. What we don't seem to consider is that there are likely as many bikes, or even more, and that gives me hope. Some are used, but many stay in the garage, or on the balcony, even through nice weather.

    We should encourage those who have bikes to ride them. They clearly want to, having taken the first step - getting a bike. A lot of people know I'm a cyclist, and the topic of commuting often comes up in conversation. The #1 reason, by far, that people I talked to don't try commuting is fear of the roads as they are. If there were safer alternatives I'm convinced more people would ride more often.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 19-02-2013 at 03:41 AM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  77. #277

    Default

    Reminder everyone transportation meeting wednesday Mar 13 at 1:30pm. Meeting details and Edmonton cycling information can be found here http://edmontonbikes.ca/speaking-to-council/ with sources

    Below is my open letter to city council

    Open Letter to Edmonton City Councillors Re: Cycling Lanes -Get them built

    Hello All,


    I would like to share with you some information below which will provide you all the information concerning how cycling investments are good for everyone in a city and not just cyclists. By providing safe dedicated right of way cycling infrastructure you will see an increase the number of cyclists which actually will take vehicles off the road and make traffic better for drivers. It is shown that cyclists and pedestrians actually spend more than motorists. Not only this but it has been shown that just like transit investments that cycling investments increase the property values of nearby homes. So this means that a bicycle lane is a better investment than a lane of parking. On top of this you can get 600 miles of cycling lanes for the cost of 1 mile of vehicular lanes.

    That seems like a pretty good investment to me as summarized below:

    1. Businesses make more money because overall cyclists spend more than drivers
    2. Drivers get more room on the road because there are more people cycling
    3. The city would spend less money on road repair, as cycling infrastructure requires less maintenance
    4. You can get more bang for your buck with a 600 to 1 mile ratio
    5. The image of Edmonton looks much better internationally since we have safe places for cyclist to coexist with motor vehicles and avoid the bad publicity of unnecessary deaths like Isaac Kornelson's on Whyte Avenue.
    6. Home owners see an improvement in their property values.
    7. By investing in cycling infrastructure we make it more affordable for people to get around the city. It is estimated to cost $9500/year to own and operate a vehicle.
    8.Young people and old alike want a safe and affordable way to get around the city and if Edmonton is not willing to invest the small amount that it takes to get this done you will risk losing people to more progressive places like London. (London just recently announced a $1 billion pound investment into cycling infrastructure, where as we are talking about $1 million investment a year. Please see the link. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8524154.html)

    http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/03/08...le-and-cities/

    Please remember cycling infrastructure should be built such that women aged 8 to 80 will feel comfortable. Please I encourage you to look at the facts and invest properly in cycling infrastructure by providing separated cycling lanes which are shown to have the highest impact at attracting the women aged 8 to 80 years.

    Thank You

    Darren Proulx
    Edmonton, AB
    T5Y2S6

    http://dnproulx.wordpress.com/2013/0...cycling-lanes/
    Last edited by dnproulx; 12-03-2013 at 01:41 PM.

  78. #278

    Default

    I wish you well with your open letter to City Council. Some of your points are fair but you loose some credibility when you compare London, U.K. to Edmonton. It is a far different situation in London. London now has a toll that people driving have to pay to get into the city centre. This has cut down the amount of vehicles driving in the downtown core. People working downtown who find it too expensive to pay this toll have had to find alternate forms of transportation. I should imagine this has a lot to do with new bicycle lanes. We are no way as congested as London streets. Our winter climate is no where near London's climate. If you are going to make a comparison to bicycle lanes you should try to pick a Canadian comparison it will hold more weight.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  79. #279

    Default

    Thank you for your input.

    I think you sort of answered question as to why it should be easier here then, we have no congestion to begin with compared to London. It is a global city that we live in now, we are in direct competition and thus comparison with cities around the world. Whether we want to admit it or not people are being injured and killed while cycling, or even walking on the sidewalk and this should not be allowed to persist and written off as an accident. I have sent many letters to city council already with canadian comparisons already, the london example was used as far as the breadth of the investment. Our neighbour to the south is currently proceeding with its first separated cycling lane downtown, Vancouver is currently constructing their second downtown separated cycling lane on comox and hemelcken. New york will be rolling out its bike share system this summer, and Vancouver will follow soon, Calgary is considering one. A cycle share system isn't even being considered by Edmonton, yet alone a car share. It is about time that Edmonton grows up if it wants to playing with the big boys and retain the talent they will inevitably lose since we couldn't be progressive. We need to add transportation options.

  80. #280

    Default

    I'd suggest comparisons with Portland instead of London/New York.

    Edmonton isn't in any way shape or form a "big boy" in terms of population size or density.

    Pick something from an equivalent American city for comparisons.
    http://www.bicycling.com/news/advoca...riendly-cities

  81. #281

    Default

    Legacy thanks for the input.

    Yes there are a number of smaller cities than Edmonton that have been able to succeed with obtaining significantly higher cycling rates. Take for example Boulder, Colorado with a population of 100,000 and yet they are able to have better cycling infrastructure than Edmonton's river valley multi-use trails. Boulders cycling lanes are able to separate cyclists from traffic and actually take cyclists directly where they need to go and are not purely a recreational consideration. We could sit here and argue about what I am comparing to, there is a city of every size globally and in north america that is embracing cycling for the benefits it can bring to a city. Developers in Portland are requesting for bike lanes next to their developments because they understand the property value they add in addition to bringing additional revenue for retailers.

  82. #282

    Default

    From today, took note of the parking use and available space on 76 ave:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...3-03-13_v3.pdf
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  83. #283
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legacy View Post
    I'd suggest comparisons with Portland instead of London/New York.

    Edmonton isn't in any way shape or form a "big boy" in terms of population size or density.

    Pick something from an equivalent American city for comparisons.
    http://www.bicycling.com/news/advoca...riendly-cities
    Sadly, while Portland is indeed a great example of bike infrastructure, the public discourse is just as bad as here, if not worse.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  84. #284

    Default

    I have a buddy (really) who lives a couple of blocks from these new bike lanes. She said even Butch Cassidy got off his bike and got back on his horse. She reckons bikes are not progress. I told her it was just in the movie but she said I did not know for sure, could have been in real life.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  85. #285

    Default

    Next edition of 'West Downtown Complete Streets' discussion is tomorrow at Oliver Hall, 7-9 pm. The first meeting on February 28 was a good start and got a lot of people talking. We invite you to join us.

    "West Downtown Complete Streets (WDCS) is a working group composed of members of the Oliver Community League, Downtown Edmonton Community League, students and other community residents, as well as interested stakeholders and the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society.

    WDCS is advocating for safe and comfortable bicycling infrastructure in Oliver and Downtown as highlighted in the Bicycle Transportation Plan."

    https://www.facebook.com/events/133539066827509/

    Some background info - http://edmontonbikes.ca/community/we...plete-streets/
    www.decl.org

  86. #286
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,981

    Default

    A pre-construction information session is coming up for the 2013 On-street Bicycle Routes. This session is an opportunity for participants to learn more about finalized plans, ask questions about route details, and find out about adjustments made as a result of previous consultation.

    Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013
    Location: Central Lions Recreation Centre, 11113—113 Street
    Time: 5-8 pm

    This is a drop-in session with a brief presentation at 5:30 pm. Project team members will be available for one-on-one discussions and questions throughout the meeting. If folks are unable to attend, information and design plans will also be posted on the web at www.edmonton.ca/cycling.

    Please note: the meeting will not include information on the 76 Avenue or 132 Avenue routes. Information about future public consultation for these corridors will follow in the coming months.


    Route Locations

    115/116 Street
    »» 71 Avenue Service Road
    (114 St to 116 St)
    »» 116 Street (71 Ave to 73 Ave)
    »» 73 Avenue (115 St to 116 St)
    »» 115 Street (73 Ave to University Ave)

    114/115 Street
    »» 114 Street (34 Ave to 44A Ave)
    »» 115 Street (46 Ave to 60 Ave)

    106 Street & 40 Avenue
    »» 106 Street (34 Ave to 51 Ave)
    »» 40 Avenue (106 St to 119 St)

    97 Street
    »» 97 Street (63 Ave to 82 Ave)

    95 Avenue
    »» 95 Avenue (145 St to 189 St)
    This route will also connect from 145 St to Summit Dr via 142 St.**
    ** Further information will be available online and distributed to the local area
    before the April 17 meeting.

    81 Street
    »» 81 Street (119 Ave to Yellowhead Tr)
    »» 119 Avenue (76 St to 82 St)
    »» 78 Street/76 Street (117 Ave to 119 Ave)

    Saddleback Road
    »» 112 Street (Saddleback Rd to 30 Ave)
    »» 31 Avenue (30 Ave to 113 St)
    »» 113 Street (31 Ave to 34 Ave)
    »» Saddleback Road (111 St to 112 St)
    »» 25 Avenue (Saddleback Rd to 119 St)
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  87. #287
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  88. #288

    Default

    Was investigating the 63ave and Allendale Road renewal on the City of Edmonton's website, and it stated that a shared use path will be included in the project design; however, the only interesting aspect about this path design is as to where it will connect with existing or possibly new bike routes...
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  89. #289
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,981
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  90. #290
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,158

    Default

    He's got a point. If I had a choice between the frontage roads and cycling alongside busy traffic, I'd take the frontage road every time. In fact, that's what I used to do in Saskatoon except I was taking the parallel non-busy road instead of the main thoroughfare (think 83th Ave rather than 82nd Ave).

    Eve

  91. #291
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The case of 95ave he may be correct, but he uses it as a litmus test, and then claims that bike lanes should not be built in Edmonton. At all.

    There are many locations where they would be well used and appreciated, if done right. And that includes cleared in the winter, and not used for snow storage.

  92. #292

    Default

    "Edmontonians can be encouraged to change their habits (function) if only city council and the bureaucrats alter infrastructure (form)." Even though he was making fun of this sentiment, I thik he's actually correct. If I had secure and safe infrastructure to cycle from A to B then wouldn't I? Possibly. But again the idea is many don't cycle because it is unsafe, restricted and inconvenient due to having to go from side streets, sidewalks, busy roads, and walk the bike who knows how far to a parking spot just to have cars whiz by you and hog all that lovely asphalt. This is not only about to-from-work commutes, but commutes for other reasons that can place a hamper on local infrastructure. Alternatives isn't about making people switch, but providing infrastructure that can simply allow the possibility. If you don't build it... you'll only get a dangerous madhouse which on some days is downtown areas and especially around the University and Old Strathcona's most busy intersections and roads. We have no infrastructure in those areas, and we would have more cyclists (and safer for everyone) if these lanes are created. I don't understand the war people are creating over alternatives and the personal automobile.

    I agree that the department should have concentrated in more central area's first, but the argument should be over "what is public space?" and "how do we best use our public space for the public?" Those far flung areas that people gripe about most often... maybe not such a good idea yet, but the argument should be about road equality and route priority - a service road is not a direct route. Gunter should ask the same question "how many cyclists squish dangerously close to traffic for the sake of getting to where they need to be just because they don't drive or maybe can't afford to?"

    "Over two full hours, at a time of day that should be the height of cycling activity, I saw a grand total of five cyclists -- five! And four were on the frontage roads. Just one was in the bike line." I guess his definition of "social engineering" by city hall only takes a couple months to fully "brainwash" the general public. I could say more, but I think we all know the multi-perspective view of Edmonton bike lanes and their pro's and con's.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  93. #293

    Default

    Gunter should have been parked on 80ave and 106st on that same day. At least he'd have a balanced and more worthy article.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  94. #294

    Default

    After Oct. 29 when council is inaugurated I'm going to push hard again for results on the 76ave route.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  95. #295
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    After Oct. 29 when council is inaugurated I'm going to push hard again for results on the 76ave route.
    Yes Please. Me too.

  96. #296
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    He's got a point. If I had a choice between the frontage roads and cycling alongside busy traffic, I'd take the frontage road every time. In fact, that's what I used to do in Saskatoon except I was taking the parallel non-busy road instead of the main thoroughfare (think 83th Ave rather than 82nd Ave).

    Eve
    I can't speak to 95th as I've never ridden it. But many 'side streets' or 'frontage roads' have stop signs every block. That basically turns commuting into a frustrating cycle of stop and go and actually might be more dangerous due to fast moving vehicles making turns into the side streets.

  97. #297
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    I really want to cheer for the bike infrastructure that is being installed but 95th ave is the wrong way to do it.

    Going from 142nd street (current bike lane) to West Edmonton Mall, I would have used primarily side streets.

    From 142nd to 148th use 95th ave as currently designated, then go down 148th down to 93rd ave, use the existing pedestrian crossing signal (green yellow red) to cross 149th.
    From 149th to 154th use 93rd ave, then down to 92nd ave to cross 156. Install green yellow red crossing signal.
    From 156th to 163rd use 92nd ave. Cross 163 at 92nd. Install bike path between Jasper Place rec centre parking lot and 165th.
    From 165th to 168th use 91st ave, then 92nd ave to 169th.
    Designate 169th as the north south bike route in that area, then it connects to the pedestrian bridge over 170th street. Alternately designate the alley between 169th and 170th as the bike route which allows the use of the crossing lights at 95th ave and 170th.

    Much more pleasant than using 95th ave.

  98. #298
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    The case of 95ave he may be correct, but he uses it as a litmus test, and then claims that bike lanes should not be built in Edmonton. At all.

    There are many locations where they would be well used and appreciated, if done right. And that includes cleared in the winter, and not used for snow storage.
    Not to pick on you highlander but if C2E would expunge this phrase from usage I wouldn't vomit in my mouth as much.

    I am sure that Mr Gunter would even like bike lanes "done right"

  99. #299
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Was on 95th Avenue yesterday, saw a bike driving eastbound ...
    ON THE SIDEWALK.

    I'm sorry the transportation department is clueless on this one, if there is a frontage road or sidewalk I'm taking it rather then driving on the bike lane, I don't care if riding a bike on the sidewalk is illegal I value my life over the cost of a ticket.

  100. #300
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    ^Except riding on the sidewalk can be more dangerous than riding on the road a majority of the times.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

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
  •