Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 1,301 to 1,379 of 1379

Thread: Jasper Avenue Makeover

  1. #1301

    Default

    How many people are wanting to stroll down the most-boring part of Jasper Ave anyway? Even with the streetscape changes it's a commuter thoroughfare full of belching Bubbawagons and buses with very little lining it to be worth walking past. Much better to walk 102 Ave under the canopy of trees away from the noise machines.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  2. #1302
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    There are some great qualities to the actual plan, and will need some dedicated Right Turn signals for 109 Street, due to limited river crossings. Getting Jasper down to 2 lanes will be a great improvement for the thousands living in Oliver.
    I assume you meant to say two traffic lanes in each direction, not two lanes.

    Which is pretty much how this section of Jasper functioned before the "design demo." Only during the morning rush hour on weekdays were there three traffic lanes going eastbound (with the westbound lane closest to the sidewalks being used for on street parking and bus stops), and during the afternoon rush hour there were three traffic lanes going westbound (with on street parking and bus stops in the eastbound lane closest to the curb). This can be confirmed by checking Google Street View which pre-dates the "design demo."

    The vast majority of the time there were only four traffic lanes plus one left turn lane. The proposition being peddled by some that before the change this stretch of Jasper was a 7 lane roadway strikes me as if not a lie certainly a misrepresentation of the facts.

  3. #1303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    How many people are wanting to stroll down the most-boring part of Jasper Ave anyway? Even with the streetscape changes it's a commuter thoroughfare full of belching Bubbawagons and buses with very little lining it to be worth walking past. Much better to walk 102 Ave under the canopy of trees away from the noise machines.
    Many rezonings / projects "on the way" (yes, some years out for some, or maybe never), but I think we can all admit the street is not in the best shape as a Main Street for Edmonton, or even Oliver.

    East McCauley, you are correct in my meaning "2 lanes each way".
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  4. #1304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    There are some great qualities to the actual plan, and will need some dedicated Right Turn signals for 109 Street, due to limited river crossings. Getting Jasper down to 2 lanes will be a great improvement for the thousands living in Oliver.
    I assume you meant to say two traffic lanes in each direction, not two lanes.

    Which is pretty much how this section of Jasper functioned before the "design demo." Only during the morning rush hour on weekdays were there three traffic lanes going eastbound (with the westbound lane closest to the sidewalks being used for on street parking and bus stops), and during the afternoon rush hour there were three traffic lanes going westbound (with on street parking and bus stops in the eastbound lane closest to the curb). This can be confirmed by checking Google Street View which pre-dates the "design demo."

    The vast majority of the time there were only four traffic lanes plus one left turn lane. The proposition being peddled by some that before the change this stretch of Jasper was a 7 lane roadway strikes me as if not a lie certainly a misrepresentation of the facts.
    The biggest adjustment and concerns is more-so the distance at intersections for people to cross, and the many components that come along with wider sidewalks for various purposes, beautification, furniture, and creating more of a balance between pedestrian space and vehicular space.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  5. #1305
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Bus pull-ins don't really relieve congestion, they just shift the delays from drivers onto bus passengers. Sure, a handful of cars get to pass the bus at each stop, but the bus would be slower, and a less pleasant ride if the bus has to pull out of traffic at each stop.
    In my 40 years of taking transit I've never experienced buses pulling back into traffic to be a problem. All ETS buses are equipped with 'Please Yield to Buses' signs for this very reason. See here: https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ase-yield.aspx

  6. #1306
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Actually, after getting over my first shock that my favourite bus stop got moved, I preferred the stop that looked like I was standing in the middle of the road. I was a little nervous that some ***** would mistake the "waiting for a bus" divot for a right turn turn lane. But it is handier and faster to get on a bus it if doesn't have to pull over. The only problem might be for people with wheels (either carriages or wheelchairs) because you're climbing onto the bus from the ground level.

    That cars were doubtless waiting for the bus to get moving again wasn't something I was concentrating on at the time. Next time, I'll make a note.

  7. #1307
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,362

    Default

    I think Edmonton would get more benefit working on the side streets off of Jasper Avenue. 103 and 104 Streets have blossomed, and I think 102 Street north of Jasper would be ideal for food trucks given its sparse retail. 106 and 107 Streets will fill out over the next 10-20 years.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  8. #1308
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    If the concern is crossing distance for people with mobility challenges installing a few bulbs at key intersections such as by the General and the Basilica should be sufficient to address any pedestrian safety concerns. The balance of the blocks in between the bulbs could then be used for bus pull-ins and on street parking.

  9. #1309
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    How many people are wanting to stroll down the most-boring part of Jasper Ave anyway? Even with the streetscape changes it's a commuter thoroughfare full of belching Bubbawagons and buses with very little lining it to be worth walking past. Much better to walk 102 Ave under the canopy of trees away from the noise machines.
    The point here is that the City was going to rebuild/replace 'as is' and not be back for a generation or more to re-look at it. This is an opportunity to find some additional elements, wider sidewalks and perhaps some bump-outs to improve it for the next 25-30yrs during which time we fully expect it to be more similar to 117-120st.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #1310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    How many people are wanting to stroll down the most-boring part of Jasper Ave anyway? Even with the streetscape changes it's a commuter thoroughfare full of belching Bubbawagons and buses with very little lining it to be worth walking past. Much better to walk 102 Ave under the canopy of trees away from the noise machines.
    The point here is that the City was going to rebuild/replace 'as is' and not be back for a generation or more to re-look at it. This is an opportunity to find some additional elements, wider sidewalks and perhaps some bump-outs to improve it for the next 25-30yrs during which time we fully expect it to be more similar to 117-120st.
    Excellent point!

  11. #1311
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/08/2...ing-a-disaster

    ' The picnic tables cluttering up the parking lanes between 109 Street and 115 Street look like outdoor seating at a homeless shelter, although even the homeless have the good sense not to use them. '





    Classic.

  12. #1312
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post

    Maybe, maybe not, but reducing the number of lanes on the road definitely does not reduce congestion either.
    Maybe not, but any increase in congestion should be extremely limited in a case like Jasper ave where the removed lanes only existed for a portion of the whole route. Jasper at 124 is 4 lanes, jasper past 109 is 5 lanes so at best the extra two lanes only get you to the bottleneck sooner.
    And from Paula Simmons:
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-jasper-avenue

    As much as Jasper Avenue west of 109 Street has the potential to look and feel like one of the grand boulevards of Europe, I figure with the traffic calming on Jasper, coupled with the traffic calming on 104 Avenue/Stony Plain Road going in, someone up there in City Hall must be looking down and smiling that the fabled McKinnon Parkway/Freeway from the METS plan will get built to relieve the traffic congestion.

  13. #1313
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    The point here is that the City was going to rebuild/replace 'as is' and not be back for a generation or more to re-look at it. This is an opportunity to find some additional elements, wider sidewalks and perhaps some bump-outs to improve it for the next 25-30yrs during which time we fully expect it to be more similar to 117-120st.
    Guess I missed the picnic tables on the 117-120 Street stretch.

    Seriously, there is very little difference between the 117-120 street stretch, and the 109-115 street before the changes.

    https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.54099...7i13312!8i6656

  14. #1314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    If the concern is crossing distance for people with mobility challenges installing a few bulbs at key intersections such as by the General and the Basilica should be sufficient to address any pedestrian safety concerns. The balance of the blocks in between the bulbs could then be used for bus pull-ins and on street parking.
    Crossing distance is an issue for everybody, and it's important everywhere. Crossing distances should be no more than 5 lanes except in the few places where the extra lane is actually NEEDED, like at 109 for the right turn, and possibly the same at 116.

    There should be additional safe pedestrian spaces in some additional locations, where a right turn isn't permitted that centre lane space could be reclaimed as a pedestrian refuge. With only 2 lanes in a single direction to cross at a time it would become actually safe to cross - and crosswalk compliance would go way up at locations where there is no signal.
    Current conditions with 7 lanes to cross pretty much require a signal to allow safe crossing to all but the brave and fast, and that detour to the nearest signalized corner is way more than the 1m20s or whatever the actual delay for drivers on the avenue. In fact, with east crossing you could eliminate signals and save drivers far more time than losing a lane costs them.

    The safer configuration should always be the default.
    There can only be one.

  15. #1315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    The point here is that the City was going to rebuild/replace 'as is' and not be back for a generation or more to re-look at it. This is an opportunity to find some additional elements, wider sidewalks and perhaps some bump-outs to improve it for the next 25-30yrs during which time we fully expect it to be more similar to 117-120st.
    Guess I missed the picnic tables on the 117-120 Street stretch.

    Seriously, there is very little difference between the 117-120 street stretch, and the 109-115 street before the changes.

    https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.54099...7i13312!8i6656
    I think the point is there's decent stret-facing buildings along most of that stretch
    There can only be one.

  16. #1316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/08/2...ing-a-disaster

    ' The picnic tables cluttering up the parking lanes between 109 Street and 115 Street look like outdoor seating at a homeless shelter, although even the homeless have the good sense not to use them. '





    Classic.
    Wow! At first I only saw bright fun cheerful seating. Oh but now I see it as it is.

    Surely a faux pas extraordinaire. Had they instead chosen seating of an individualist, isolationist, contemplative, anti-social, outward facing nature with suitably and correspondingly evocative naming - as is the renowned "Adirondack" chair - then naturally, all opinion would have been one of awakening, stirring, conjuring, and maybe even 'rousing' within sore footed pedestrian minds a wonderful sensation of being at a luxury mountain lodge, and not ariving at a homeless shelter. Those classless bureaucrats once again show their true 'colors'.

    Fairmont Jasper Park Lodge:


    http://www.followpanda.com/wp-conten...920_01o700.jpg




    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/me...asper-park.jpg


    Homeless shelter seating:


    http://wpmedia.edmontonjournal.com/2...y=55&strip=all


    Below, the long preferred deadmonton streetscape under the old bureaucratic policy of: Try Nothing, Improve Nothing, Spend Nothing, Fix Nothing, Risk Nothing, Attract Nothing - including Vibrancy and Enterprise but more importantly career ending: Critical Media Attention and the resulting Taxpayer Rath.



    http://georgepechtol.com/files/2008_09/deadmonton_5.jpg

    1923 when everyone embraced the black automobile, didn't ride bikes, didn't stop to sit... probably because they'd embraced the belching rattling smoking engines all around them. They likely ran for the indoors.



    http://wpmedia.edmontonjournal.com/2...nal-com17.jpeg



    Imagine the serenity of Jasper Avenue "streetscape" in that picture above when you watch this short video:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VQuT7fj2tzY
    Last edited by KC; 25-08-2017 at 09:46 AM.

  17. #1317
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    The point here is that the City was going to rebuild/replace 'as is' and not be back for a generation or more to re-look at it. This is an opportunity to find some additional elements, wider sidewalks and perhaps some bump-outs to improve it for the next 25-30yrs during which time we fully expect it to be more similar to 117-120st.
    Guess I missed the picnic tables on the 117-120 Street stretch.

    Seriously, there is very little difference between the 117-120 street stretch, and the 109-115 street before the changes.

    https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.54099...7i13312!8i6656
    As in Illuminada, Pearl etc.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #1318

    Default

    The problems with streetscape (beyond the physical state of it & the overlarge geometry) in Oliver isn't really 109-115 or 117-120, it's 115-116 aka Edmonton Motors. Low-volume retail & what amounts to surface lots are killers for any sort of momentum down the avenue.

    The sooner we get that waste of space outta the neighbourhood the better.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  19. #1319
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    ^^Yet, the Illuminada, Pearl etc. were developed without major alterations/narrowing of Jasper Avenue.

    Wider sidewalks can be achieved by setting back new buildings a bit more from the street. Allowing more on street parking along some of the blocks also creates separation from moving lanes of traffic while improving accessibility to businesses located on Jasper.

  20. #1320
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,043

    Default

    Point being that even though they were built on the current Jasper Avenue and reasonably urban, they are the direction of where we want 113-117st to go.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #1321
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The problems with streetscape (beyond the physical state of it & the overlarge geometry) in Oliver isn't really 109-115 or 117-120, it's 115-116 aka Edmonton Motors. Low-volume retail & what amounts to surface lots are killers for any sort of momentum down the avenue.

    The sooner we get that waste of space outta the neighbourhood the better.
    You get a bingo.
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  22. #1322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Yet, the Illuminada, Pearl etc. were developed without major alterations/narrowing of Jasper Avenue.

    Wider sidewalks can be achieved by setting back new buildings a bit more from the street. Allowing more on street parking along some of the blocks also creates separation from moving lanes of traffic while improving accessibility to businesses located on Jasper.
    Wider streets aren't necessarily better, expecially since you're taking potentially productive space to widen sidewalks instead of using underutilized space on the street.

    I take jasper ave off-peak sometimes and one thing that's clear is that other than in a few spots where there's a critical mass of demand (around Cactus Club & Joeys) there's not a lot of actual street parking being used. Thanks to the design it doesn't look like parking and with the time of day restrictions it looks less like parking - and no one wants to be the first parked car on a block.

    Adding substantial bulb-outs at every corner, extending to the 5m back from the crosswalk where parking isn't supposed to be anyway makes crossing safer, makes that parking more useful since it actually looks like parking, and provides that extra space (it wasn't legal parking space before) for getting things like garbage cans, newspaper boxes and bike racks out of the way of the walking part of the sidewalk, and gives the city a place to put their off-duty signs without blocking the sidewalk.

    Bumping out the sidewalk at bus stops too allow shelters and benches to be built out of the sidewalk, puts waiting patrons out where they're easily visible to bus drivers, and yes, makes for a smoother and marginally faster ride, while again not costing any parking - if anything saving a little since a bus pull-out would have to be longer than a bus bulb-out.
    There can only be one.

  23. #1323
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    A small but important win: http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...r-avenue-pilot

    Edmonton officials are pulling back on a key piece of the Jasper Avenue pilot project after traffic studies showed drivers were having a hard time making a turn.

    Experience Jasper Avenue took away the dedicated right-turn lane for eastbound drivers trying to turn right onto 109 Street.
    That’s coming back Wednesday, according to Ward 6 Coun. Scott McKeen, who said he’s heard from a lot of frustrated drivers: “People have been really upset and I think the city did a poor job of communicating why the installation was done.”
    City officials said taking away the right-turn lane was meant to increase pedestrian safety because many people on foot felt drivers were not seeing them. They didn’t yield when pedestrians tried to use the crosswalk.
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  24. #1324

    Default

    You know what'd increase pedestrian safety at 109 & Jasper? Pedestrians actually obeying the signals. The amount of people that jump out when the hand is up & the countdown is on is ridiculous & is part of the reason the turning lane is required, since a stray pedestrian or two can completely skullfuck the signal phases preventing anyone from turning right during a cycle.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  25. #1325

    Default

    Meh. Not allowing pedestrians to cross when they have the time to do so is worse. I know that's the letter of the law but following the letter of the law the countdown clocks have no purpose, because if you start crossing on green/walking man then you have the right of way for the extent of the crossing as long as you continue crossing.

    The existence of countdown clocks at all is an acknowledgement that pedestrians should have the right to cross as long as they have the time to do so whether or not that fact is explicitly recognised in the highway traffic act or not.
    There can only be one.

  26. #1326

    Default

    But they don't have the time to do so, as they're still in the intersection when the direction changes & prevent people from turning right as the advanced left arrow is up for the perpendicular (from the pedestrian's point of view) direction of travel. Then the arrow ends & the people crossing correctly flood into the crosswalk, preventing right hand turns. There's literally people in the crosswalk/traffic the entire cycle.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  27. #1327
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,126

    Default

    Maybe they should consider a scramble crossing
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  28. #1328

    Default

    ^^Ah, OK, I though you were taking about people crossing during the countdown and making it, not people ignoring the signals altogether. Maybe that happens at 109/Jasper a lot, but I don't see it at all at 109/104. At least, It affects the legal traffic phase less than yellow/red running left turners do.

    Incidentally, I looked up the Alberta Highway Traffic Act and there is no mention of flashing hands/don't walk signals or countdowns at all.

    ^Scramble would work without the need for the right turn lane, but with the lane it should work just fine with a right turn phase during the opposing left turn phases. That would even work with a no-right-on-red rule like usually goes with a scramble.
    There can only be one.

  29. #1329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Maybe they should consider a scramble crossing
    Has Ian brought this to the attention of McKeen for admin to consider? That's one of a few locations in the city that it makes a lot of sense, along with Whyte at Gateway.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  30. #1330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^Ah, OK, I though you were taking about people crossing during the countdown and making it, not people ignoring the signals altogether. Maybe that happens at 109/Jasper a lot, but I don't see it at all at 109/104. At least, It affects the legal traffic phase less than yellow/red running left turners do.
    Happens to me more often than not & I've sat through multiple cycles to make a right hand turn onto 109 just this week. Anecdotes aren't data, but in my anecdotal experience this summer experiment has been terrible since day 1 at this corner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Incidentally, I looked up the Alberta Highway Traffic Act and there is no mention of flashing hands/don't walk signals or countdowns at all.
    Because pedestrians are traffic, same as vehicles. There used to be references to pedestrian-specific stuff in previous revisions but now all users of the road are traffic.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #1331

    Default

    ^ There is some pedestrian stuff, but it's only walk/don't walk, and how to cross/not cross when there are just traffic signals. The closest is reference to a flashing red traffic signal (Stop and proceed when safe)
    There can only be one.

  32. #1332

    Default

    http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

    That's because it's in the regs based on the act, not the act itself.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #1333
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,621

    Default

    Those pedestrian countdown lights are an infantilizing scourge.

  34. #1334

    Default

    ^^those regs are what I was referring to, if imprecisely. No countdowns in there
    There can only be one.

  35. #1335

    Default

    In the definitions

    (n) “pedestrian traffic control signal” means a traffic control signal by which pedestrians are specifically directed to proceed or not to proceed;

    And in Section 98

    (3)
    When, at an intersection or at a place other than an intersectiona pedestrian traffic control signal shows a word or symbol indicating “wait” or “don’t walk”,
    (a) a pedestrian who is facing that signal shall not enter the roadway, and

    (b) in the case of a pedestrian who is proceeding across the roadway and facing the word or symbol indicating “wait” or “don’t walk” that is shown after the pedestrian has entered on the roadway, the pedestrian

    (i) shall proceed to the sidewalk as quickly as possible,

    and

    (ii) has the right of way for that purpose over all vehicles.
    The countdown itself is completely irrelevant, as the hand indicates "don't walk" & as such no pedestrians should be entering the roadway when it's displayed, regardless of the time displayed.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  36. #1336

    Default

    Sure, so what's the point of the countdown? Legally it's nothing, but it's a defacto permission to cross as long as you can complete your crossing, because it could have no other purpose.

    edit: the flashing hand has no legal purpose either, except perhaps to harass pedestrians into crossing faster.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 30-08-2017 at 10:03 AM.
    There can only be one.

  37. #1337

    Default

    Just to engage in the sidebar people (not me, I prefer to start crossing a wide road at the start of the walk signal) will increasingly walk across whether the walk signal is fresh or even ended. They do this largely because there is VARIABILITY in the design of these things and CRITICALLY in what it means when the walk clock elapses. In some intersections what it means is a quick amber, and then red, and then traffic moving across. In other intersections its simply the end of the walk sequence followed by a significant delay before the lights change. In essence then the City is setting up, seemingly unknowingly, is variability in design sequences and thus variability in behavior.

    Indeed no such behavior is harder to extinguish than that which has been set up in a variable scheduled reinforcement paradigm. People continue to walk on stale walk signs, or even on non walk signs because those people are conditioned to think that there will be time to do so and that lights will not change quickly. Peoples walking behavior as noted is a patterned response to that which they have experienced through such signals. They are conditioned to think that the walk countdown often signals nothing.

    Its the variability in signalling that sets up all the problems. There needs to be more standardization. The end of the counted down walk sequence should mean that the lights are going to change. Not a bluff, sometimes it does, some places it does, many others it doesn't..It needs to mean the lights change, right after the countdown.
    Last edited by Replacement; 30-08-2017 at 10:04 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  38. #1338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Sure, so what's the point of the countdown? Legally it's nothing, but it's a defacto permission to cross as long as you can complete your crossing, because it could have no other purpose.
    If the hand is up you're not supposed to be entering the roadway, full stop.

    The timer gives you information about the time left to cross for those that entered the roadway when they were legally permitted to do so, not tacit approval to enter when prohibited because you figure you've got enough hustle to make it across.

    It's your sort of dubious, legally incorrect line of thinking that has pedestrians entering the roadway whenever the countdown is >0, gumming up the works.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #1339

    Default

    ^ We also have locations where cross traffic is sensor activated and the countdown/ flashing don't walk signal starts whether or not cross traffic has been sensed. If not, after the countdown it returns to....walk. In those cases it's technically stop for pedestrians for no reason whatsoever. presumably detection of a car with one second left on the countdown would get that car a green light right away; while we have beg button signals that don't let people cross unless they press the button before the countdown would have started, so you end up with a cycle-and-a-half wait times.
    There can only be one.

  40. #1340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Sure, so what's the point of the countdown? Legally it's nothing, but it's a defacto permission to cross as long as you can complete your crossing, because it could have no other purpose.
    If the hand is up you're not supposed to be entering the roadway, full stop.

    The timer gives you information about the time left to cross for those that entered the roadway when they were legally permitted to do so, not tacit approval to enter when prohibited because you figure you've got enough hustle to make it across.

    It's your sort of dubious, legally incorrect line of thinking that has pedestrians entering the roadway whenever the countdown is >0, gumming up the works.
    What's the point of giving that information? if they're in the crosswalk they can take as long as they take, and walk, don't run, remember?

    Countdowns actually reduce the number of people entering the crosswalk with only a few seconds left. Otherwise you get people start crossing with only a coupe seconds left because they don't have the information, and it's worth making that gamble if the alternative is a 2 minute wait.

    *Nothing wrong with running. If there is, then driving over 5km/hr is a problem too.
    There can only be one.

  41. #1341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^ We also have locations where cross traffic is sensor activated and the countdown/ flashing don't walk signal starts whether or not cross traffic has been sensed. If not, after the countdown it returns to....walk. In those cases it's technically stop for pedestrians for no reason whatsoever. presumably detection of a car with one second left on the countdown would get that car a green light right away; while we have beg button signals that don't let people cross unless they press the button before the countdown would have started, so you end up with a cycle-and-a-half wait times.
    Another problem I haven't noted is the signals that are not counted down but simply walk vs flashing don't walk. The variability in timing of some of these is ridiculous. Some will allow something like 25 secs to elapse before the change and some will be a matter of seconds before the flashing don't walk occurs. It makes navigating these as a pedestrian, and especially for infirm pedestrians, that much more difficult. The degree of variability arguably introduces danger. A pedestrian should not have to guess whether they have enough time to make it across. I'll mention as well that a new thing I'm noting is that certain breeds of aggressive driver take a flashing don't walk sign as an invitation to hurry that walker with their bumper. Its this little take the foot off the brake taunting that goes on currently. Its happening frequently.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  42. #1342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    What's the point of giving that information? if they're in the crosswalk they can take as long as they take, and walk, don't run, remember?
    Provided they entered the roadway when it was legally permitted. Entering when not permitted does not grant you immediate right of way, as right of way is only granted to those people who entered during the approved walk phase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Countdowns actually reduce the number of people entering the crosswalk with only a few seconds left. Otherwise you get people start crossing with only a coupe seconds left because they don't have the information, and it's worth making that gamble if the alternative is a 2 minute wait.
    This doesn't seem to be the case on Jasper Ave at 109 St, but if you can provide a citation I'll happily cede the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    *Nothing wrong with running. If there is, then driving over 5km/hr is a problem too.
    By all means, dart out in front of turning cars when you don't have the legal right of way because you're entering the roadway without permission.

    (And you just said above that people should walk, not run. Which is it?)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  43. #1343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    What's the point of giving that information? if they're in the crosswalk they can take as long as they take, and walk, don't run, remember?
    Provided they entered the roadway when it was legally permitted. Entering when not permitted does not grant you immediate right of way, as right of way is only granted to those people who entered during the approved walk phase.
    So if you've entered the crosswalk legally the information provided by the countdown, or even by the difference between the solid and flashing hands means nothing to you. Maybe it's intended for those who aren't technically acting legally?


    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Countdowns actually reduce the number of people entering the crosswalk with only a few seconds left. Otherwise you get people start crossing with only a coupe seconds left because they don't have the information, and it's worth making that gamble if the alternative is a 2 minute wait.
    This doesn't seem to be the case on Jasper Ave at 109 St, but if you can provide a citation I'll happily cede the point.
    I don't have one either, outside of my own anecdotal experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    *Nothing wrong with running. If there is, then driving over 5km/hr is a problem too.
    By all means, dart out in front of turning cars when you don't have the legal right of way because you're entering the roadway without permission.

    (And you just said above that people should walk, not run. Which is it?)

    Nothing wrong with running, actually, although "walk, don't run" is reasonable instruction for preschoolers and primary kids. and don't jaywalk in a gap so small that you have to run to survive.
    When in a crosswalk pedestrians don't need to run or hurry up to get out of impatient drivers' way. Just keep walking, is what I meant.

    but if you want to jog to cross during the countdown running isn't a particular hazard, unless you're talking about a no-look full sprint just as you leave the curb crossing counter-clockwise so right-turners on green wouldn't see you coming from behind.
    There can only be one.

  44. #1344
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Maybe they should consider a scramble crossing
    Has Ian brought this to the attention of McKeen for admin to consider? That's one of a few locations in the city that it makes a lot of sense, along with Whyte at Gateway.
    There was consideration WAY back to do one there, Jasper/105st and one at 101st/102ave. The only one to date is the one on Jasper/RHW.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  45. #1345

    Default

    105 & 105 is a scramble, but one corner is currently closed to pedestrians, northbound entering is currently closed to vehicles, they just added a protected bike lane without any attention to the signals, and there's so little traffic that everyone walks during the drive phases anyway. and we don't feel bad about it because drivers often turn right during the walk phase.
    There can only be one.

  46. #1346
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,126

    Default

    Edmonton failing to measure what matters on Jasper Avenue: health expert
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-health-expert

    When Karen Lee helped New York City give Times Square back to pedestrians, they measured everything from improved air quality to foot traffic and retail sales at street-level businesses to prove the temporary pilot should stay.

    On Jasper Avenue, Edmonton is measuring driving times. That’s it.

    It has Lee worried.

    “People care about the health of their families, about seniors and whether they can safely cross the street to get to their bank. If we don’t capture that data, it’s easier for that not to be part of the conversation,” said Lee, an international health and urban planning expert coming home to the Edmonton area to help look at local solutions.

    On Jasper Avenue, the City of Edmonton is testing wider sidewalks and a narrower street to keep local residents safe and invite more foot traffic for businesses. But the city is not measuring how many people actually use the street on foot during the pilot project, retail impacts or how quality of life for the many seniors living in that area changes.

    It means those concerned about traffic impacts may drown out those appreciating the benefits. City officials are only measuring the benefits through surveys and comments.

    That’s likely not enough, said Lee: “Capturing (impacts) only anecdotally, then it’s easier for them to be dismissed. That’s really important.”
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  47. #1347

    Default

    Expert recommends that the city engages in consultation of the type that she specializes in.

    How the hell is this news?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #1348

    Default

    Besides the fact that she's actually right?

    It's no so much a news article, and contrary to the headline it's more of a preview of her workshop on 105ave that happens to highlight some of her ideas.
    There can only be one.

  49. #1349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Besides the fact that she's actually right?
    Not arguing the validity of her points, only the lack of journalistic integrity in running the article in the first place. I'm sure she's got some great ideas & the workshop will be great.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    It's no so much a news article, and contrary to the headline it's more of a preview of her workshop on 105ave that happens to highlight some of her ideas.
    It's promotional material, not news, which is the crux of my "how the hell is this news?" argument.

    I hardly expect the Journal & Sun to be bastions of journalistic integrity in the modern age, but this seemed a bit more blatant than usual.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  50. #1350

    Default

    Hmm. I haven't been a newspaper subscriber in forever, but this piece doesn't seem like it would have been out of place 10 or 15 years ago.
    There can only be one.

  51. #1351

    Default

    Any costly changes need to be made with proper study, goals, and ways to measure performance to determine if the changes that do get made were worthwhile. Driving time and driver frustration is definitely a factor, as that vehicle traffic needs to mingle with pedestrians at times. Making sure those pedestrians are managed in a way to increase walkability while also maintaining safety is where we need more study. My concern is that, in an effort to appease the pedestrian activists, the city will overcorrect from looking only at driving time to only considering pedestrian activity, all other transportation be damned.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  52. #1352

    Default

    ^I don't think that there's much risk of that, even for individual projects. Whatever their philosophies may be the vast majority of our Councillors and city staff are Car drivers - not only are we unlikely to see the pendulum swing past balance while that's the case, it'll be the rare project that has more than a minute negative impact on drivers compared the status quo. Here on Jasper the ROW that they're looking at re-allocating is space that's virtually useless to drivers, not anything that will have a substantial impact.

    City-wide the balance is so far toward cars that it will take decades of balanced projects before our infrastructure can be called anything but auto-centric.
    There can only be one.

  53. #1353
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Expert recommends that the city engages in consultation of the type that she specializes in.

    How the hell is this news?


  54. #1354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Besides the fact that she's actually right?

    It's no so much a news article, and contrary to the headline it's more of a preview of her workshop on 105ave that happens to highlight some of her ideas.
    Right about what? Her study would be as specious as what she indicates is going on now. Except that she would essentially reverse those polled. Moving the focus group from drivers to street users. While that is reasonable in the purview of 105avenue it is not on Jasper Avenue which is a necessary, and main commuter route. Any loss of time for drivers results in more pollution, more stopped idling vehicles, more congestion, longer traffic back ups and load conditions and a rush hour that is more than that.

    If looking at such things as health, pollution, safety I don't know that a backed up mile of vehicles on Jasper Avenue does that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  55. #1355
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    ^^^Therein lies the rub. Highlander II's idea of what constitutes balance is much different than what Chmilz thinks is balance.

    While very much in favour of improving streetscapes, the narrowing of Jasper seems contrived and a solution to a non-existent problem. If Jasper were clogged with pedestrians and cyclists like it is with motor vehicles during peak periods, Highlander's idea of balance might have more merit.

    The only genuine concern seems to be crossing distance for elderly seniors and persons with mobility challenges. Install bulbs at some intersections where these folks cross most frequently while leaving the rest of the block for bus pull-ins and on street parking. Problem solved.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 29-09-2017 at 11:11 AM.

  56. #1356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^^Therein lies the rub. Highlander II's idea of what constitutes balance is much different than what Chmilz thinks is balance.

    While very much in favour of improving streetscapes, the narrowing of Jasper seems contrived and a solution to a non-existent problem. If Jasper were clogged with pedestrians and cyclists like it is with motor vehicles during peak periods, Highlander's idea of balance might have more merit.

    The only genuine concern seems to be crossing distance for elderly seniors and persons with mobility challenges. Install bulbs at some intersections where these folks cross most frequently while leaving the rest of the block for bus pull-ins and on street parking. Problem solved.
    This indeed is the problem with her stance. In effect she's being asked to speak relative to 105avenue but she's conflating Jasper Avenue, a main driving corridor, with it. What should work for one avenue isn't the case for all. To that respect she seems to be generalizing that all streets should be pedestrian centric and suited.

    Whats wrong with certain streets being driver oriented and others pedestrian friendly?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  57. #1357

    Default

    no, she's not conflating anything.

    She's saying that it's better to measure and put some numbers on the pedestrian experience as well as on traffic volumes and speeds. That applies especially on an avenue like jasper avenue where traffic flow matters but it's smack in the middle of a neighbourhood.

    On 105ave and neighbourhood streets you can say "screw drivers, it's still possible to get there". On major arterials you can say "screw pedestrians, there's a different way for you", and freeways you say "screw pedestrians" with no conditions.

    its precisely the main streets like Jasper Ave where it's most important to consider both.
    There can only be one.

  58. #1358

    Default

    No, its the worst form of social engineering based on retroactive nimbyism. In short residents there wanting Jasper Avenue changed to pedestrian friendly orientation when they knew it was a commuter route WHEN they bought there, and that it always has been.

    I don't know anybody that considers Jasper Avenue a pleasant walk or that it even is preferred as a walking destination. So many other better walking routes exist East west.

    I get that every neighborhood seemingly anywhere in Edmonton doesn't want commuters driving though it but when that is being voiced regarding a main street and commuter route in a DT then its beyond the pale.

    Part of living in a DT is existing with traffic load conditions and traffic and noise. It really is. This shouldn't be news.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  59. #1359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    No, its the worst form of social engineering based on retroactive nimbyism. In short residents there wanting Jasper Avenue changed to pedestrian friendly orientation when they knew it was a commuter route WHEN they bought there, and that it always has been.
    And we're not allowed to have aspirations for more or an improvement in our neighbourhood?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I don't know anybody that considers Jasper Avenue a pleasant walk or that it even is preferred as a walking destination.
    It's not the destination, but given that it's the major commercial axis for a significant section of the most densely populated neighbourhood in Edmonton Oliver residents get to walk up & down it regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So many other better walking routes exist East west.
    Except when we're trying to get to something actually ON JASPER AVE. Sure, I could walk a block off & back onto Jasper at either end of my walk to the UPS Store, but why should I have to add 33% onto my trip distance just to have a passable pedestrian experience?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I get that every neighborhood seemingly anywhere in Edmonton doesn't want commuters driving though it but when that is being voiced regarding a main street and commuter route in a DT then its beyond the pale.
    I get that you're a cantankerous, disapproving, human Eeyore crossed with a tumor with a heart as black as coal, but Oliver residents have as much right to a pleasant neighbourhood as anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Part of living in a DT is existing with traffic load conditions and traffic and noise. It really is. This shouldn't be news.
    Jasper Ave through much of Oliver is dramatically overbuilt for the existing traffic load conditions for the 90% of the time that isn't rush hour & more than adequate for when it is. Reconfiguring the road to create a much better experience for the residents & visitors isn't a huge deal.

    But please, keep telling me why I should just suck it up & not want better for my neighbourhood.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #1360

    Default

    ^^ Replacement, You didn't read the article at all, did you?

    She said nothing about pedestrians mattering more. Just that impacts on them should be measured. there are as many people living in Oliver as use jasper Ave in their cars, and most of them will use or cross Jasper ave regularly.
    There can only be one.

  61. #1361

    Default

    ^^Not at all, aspire by all means, and from a distance I consider most of Oliver pleasant. Particularly walkable, and I'm not arguing anything different. There are multiple avenues, streets that are pleasant to walk on in the area and Jasper Avenue isn't necessarily one.

    Its one thing to argue neighborhood benefit and wishing for more, fine, but does EVERY street and avenue in the neighborhood need to be configured that way? Jasper Avenue and 104Avenue are the obvious commuter routes. Simply avoid those and you have a fairly idyllic walking experience relative to other city central areas found anywhere.

    Should everything in the Oliver community be configured so Noodle can have a more pleasant walking experience going to the UPS store?

    Walking Jasper Avenue is not difficult, its not impeded, lights and crosswalks are everywhere, we're talking slight variations of what could be perceived as pleasant.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-09-2017 at 12:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #1362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^ Replacement, You didn't read the article at all, did you?

    She said nothing about pedestrians mattering more. Just that impacts on them should be measured. there are as many people living in Oliver as use jasper Ave in their cars, and most of them will use or cross Jasper ave regularly.
    Of course I read the article. I also read you saying she was "right". She is offering her opinion, on her self described expertise, as a speaker lobbyist lobbying for what she speaks.

    How is she "right" before any of her described data and study actually occurs here.

    Unless the concept of "right" to you exists as something you just happen to agree with.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-09-2017 at 12:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  63. #1363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Not at all, and from a distance I consider most of Oliver pleasant. Particularly walkable, and I'm not arguing anything different. There are multiple avenues, streets that are pleasant to walk on in the area and Jasper Avenue isn't necessarily one.
    You realize that people walk in Oliver for reasons other than recreation & pleasant perambulation? Heaven forfend we try to walk to the shops & services on Jasper Ave!

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Walking Jasper Avenue is not difficult, its not impeded, lights and crosswalks are everywhere, we're talking slight variations of what could be perceived as pleasant.
    It's not abhorrent, but it's far from ideal & we can make dramatic improvements with what amounts to relatively minor geometry during the neighbourhood renewal. Even if the status quo is sufficient for you "at a distance" it's not up to the standards Edmonton has set forth & is carrying out elsewhere for the residents & actual community members.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  64. #1364

    Default

    How is it difficult walking to the shops and services on Jasper Avenue? What impedes your way? Needing to walk half a block to a lighted crossing?

    Please describe the hardship you face everyday on your commute to shops.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  65. #1365

    Default

    Besides the often-cluttered sidewalks in terrible disrepair, the light cycles timed entirely for cars that force me to stop at every controlled intersection & "upgraded" crosswalks that are still unsafe thanks to road geometry/layout?

    Nothing, it's just peachy.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #1366

    Default

    Heavens forbid a pedestrian has to stop at a controlled intersection.

    What undue hardship.

    You're quite simply being ridiculous.

    Please come up with something even approaching a legitimate concern.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  67. #1367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Heavens forbid a pedestrian has to stop at a controlled intersection.

    What undue hardship.
    Rich coming from the guy who thinks playground zones & their 10-20km/h speed reductions are a massive burden to drivers. Having to stop at every intersection adds a huge amount of time to any trip. You'd not accept having to stop at every light as a car, why is it okay to do that to pedestrians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You're quite simply being ridiculous.
    You're a disingenuous, selfish hypocrite who craps all over everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Please come up with something even approaching a legitimate concern.
    I'm sorry if they're not legitimate for you, a non-resident who only sees the neighbourhood at a distance as you drive on through, but these are the concerns voice by the neighbourhood writ large at the Open Houses that shaped the plan. Your own twisted criteria aren't applicable outside your own dark & gloomy mind (thank goodness).

    If Oliver & Jasper Ave are ruined for you & you never come my way again I'll view that as an entirely positive ancillary benefit.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  68. #1368

    Default

    Or you could just state what the ACTUAL barriers are to the present pedestrian use of Jasper Avenue.

    Instead of your usual projected rubbish.

    In anycase nice attempt at moving goalposts. Note that I don't oppose the school zone/expanded playground speed limits and adhere to them. I was just debating the necessity. Albeit I recognize when you have no argument your tactic is to divert to something, anything else.

    In this instance you ARE arguing on the NEED for change without providing one iota of pov on why it needs to change..So try to keep on topic.

    I know you can recognize the difference.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-09-2017 at 01:28 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  69. #1369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Or you could just state what the ACTUAL barriers are to the present pedestrian use of Jasper Avenue.
    I did, you're just being you usual cantankerous, dismissive, divisive self & ignoring them because they don't meet your own irrelevant standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Instead of your usual projected rubbish.
    Projection on forums are like farts: He who smelt it, likely dealt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In anycase nice attempt at moving goalposts. Note that I don't oppose the speed limits and adhere to them. Albeit I recognize when you have no argument your tactic is to divert to anything else.
    What goalposts did I move? Am I not allowed to bring in other discussions to provide the accurate context to show you're a hypocritical sack of *****?


    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In this instance you ARE arguing on the NEED for change without providing one iota of pov on why it needs to change..
    No, rather I am cognizant of Jasper Ave already being years past its expected lifespan & in need of renewal. The fact I want my neighbourhood to be improved while we've "got the hood up" doesn't imply a burning need, rather it makes sense to, at the beginning of a massive neighbourhood renewal project, ensure that the neighbourhood will benefit as much as is feasible given the project constraints. If the neighbourhood is to benefit, then certain things need to be done. I want my neighbourhood to be better & for that certain things need to change. That is not saying I need my neighbourhood to be better. My neighbourhood is awesome in spite of Edmonton's previous agendas shaping it more to the benefit of those that pass through than those that actually live there & if we can strike a better balance going forward it'll only get better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I know you can recognize the difference.
    Only thing I'm recognizing is the futility of continuing to acknowledge your ongoing perversely negative & reactionary rhetoric. You contribute nothing of value to any discussion you enter & **** on/off everyone who comes in contact with you. If I still used my ignore list you'd be on it, but as my signature states I find it better to laugh at your moronic babbling, as that's the only positive effect you'll ever have.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  70. #1370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Edmonton failing to measure what matters on Jasper Avenue: health expert
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-health-expert

    When Karen Lee helped New York City give Times Square back to pedestrians, they measured everything from improved air quality to foot traffic and retail sales at street-level businesses to prove the temporary pilot should stay.

    On Jasper Avenue, Edmonton is measuring driving times. That’s it.

    It has Lee worried.

    “People care about the health of their families, about seniors and whether they can safely cross the street to get to their bank. If we don’t capture that data, it’s easier for that not to be part of the conversation,” said Lee, an international health and urban planning expert coming home to the Edmonton area to help look at local solutions.

    On Jasper Avenue, the City of Edmonton is testing wider sidewalks and a narrower street to keep local residents safe and invite more foot traffic for businesses. But the city is not measuring how many people actually use the street on foot during the pilot project, retail impacts or how quality of life for the many seniors living in that area changes.

    It means those concerned about traffic impacts may drown out those appreciating the benefits. City officials are only measuring the benefits through surveys and comments.

    That’s likely not enough, said Lee: “Capturing (impacts) only anecdotally, then it’s easier for them to be dismissed. That’s really important.”
    Oh for goodness sake, do I have to point out the obvious to the ***** planner types? We are not New York and Jasper Avenue is not Times Square. It is a major street that goes 30 blocks and is used by many commuters and many people traveling throughout the downtown.

    If some little old lady has trouble getting across the street, then frikkin make the walk signal a little longer. We spent millions and millions and all this does is mess things up and inconvenience a lot of people across the city. The city has screwed so many things up over the last few years we need to fire some of these people who have some sort of an ideological crusade against anything working smoothly.

    Enough,. Most of us are very tired of all this crap.

  71. #1371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Or you could just state what the ACTUAL barriers are to the present pedestrian use of Jasper Avenue.
    I did, you're just being you usual cantankerous, dismissive, divisive self & ignoring them because they don't meet your own irrelevant standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Instead of your usual projected rubbish.
    Projection on forums are like farts: He who smelt it, likely dealt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In anycase nice attempt at moving goalposts. Note that I don't oppose the speed limits and adhere to them. Albeit I recognize when you have no argument your tactic is to divert to anything else.
    What goalposts did I move? Am I not allowed to bring in other discussions to provide the accurate context to show you're a hypocritical sack of *****?


    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In this instance you ARE arguing on the NEED for change without providing one iota of pov on why it needs to change..
    No, rather I am cognizant of Jasper Ave already being years past its expected lifespan & in need of renewal. The fact I want my neighbourhood to be improved while we've "got the hood up" doesn't imply a burning need, rather it makes sense to, at the beginning of a massive neighbourhood renewal project, ensure that the neighbourhood will benefit as much as is feasible given the project constraints. If the neighbourhood is to benefit, then certain things need to be done. I want my neighbourhood to be better & for that certain things need to change. That is not saying I need my neighbourhood to be better. My neighbourhood is awesome in spite of Edmonton's previous agendas shaping it more to the benefit of those that pass through than those that actually live there & if we can strike a better balance going forward it'll only get better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I know you can recognize the difference.
    Only thing I'm recognizing is the futility of continuing to acknowledge your ongoing perversely negative & reactionary rhetoric. You contribute nothing of value to any discussion you enter & **** on/off everyone who comes in contact with you. If I still used my ignore list you'd be on it, but as my signature states I find it better to laugh at your moronic babbling, as that's the only positive effect you'll ever have.
    lmao. This pathetic ranting isn't worthy of response. Let me know when you've finished flailing away.

    Go outside and enjoy a walk along Jasper Avenue or something. I'm going back out, beautiful day out.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  72. #1372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Go outside and enjoy a walk along Jasper Avenue or something. I'm going back out, beautiful day out.
    Thanks for your suggestion, I'll be out running errands after work (remember, I only post here when I have nothing better to do at work); I'd enjoy running my errands up & down the Ave a lot more if there were more than the barest of concessions toward pedestrian use & if I didn't spend half as much time waiting at lights as walking, but evidently that's just too much to ask for.

    (Thanks for not arguing any of my points. I'll take your concession on these matters gracefully.)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  73. #1373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Go outside and enjoy a walk along Jasper Avenue or something. I'm going back out, beautiful day out.
    Thanks for your suggestion, I'll be out running errands after work (remember, I only post here when I have nothing better to do at work); I'd enjoy running my errands up & down the Ave a lot more if there were more than the barest of concessions toward pedestrian use & if I didn't spend half as much time waiting at lights as walking, but evidently that's just too much to ask for.

    (Thanks for not arguing any of my points. I'll take your concession on these matters gracefully.)
    Haha. Not concession as much as attrition. This day was too nice to argue more thoroughly.

    Have a great weekend.

    ps I was rarely on your ignore list when you were using one. Or at least seemingly so. You respond to almost everything I posit here.
    Last edited by Replacement; 29-09-2017 at 05:30 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  74. #1374
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,043

    Default

    When I went to Winnipeg for the International Downtown Association conference, I attended a session on place-making and urban design. I ended up having a good chat with one of the urban designers from MTL and asked him to look at our Imagine Jasper pilot and provide some feedback:

    ----
    Thanks Ian, something to chew on. So just at a quick glance, these Jasper changes could be a transformative project, particularly if paired with some zoning to encourage minimal setbacks and ground floor retail going forward, and maybe even some creative tactical urbanism work to bridge some of the gaps in the retail space along the corridor.

    So just at glance without looking at turning movement volumes, the traffic volumes are generally fair low for how many lanes you have here, and the fact that you’re dealing with a grid indicates you could have even more room to play with in certain stretches of the street if the city decided that economic benefits outweighed free flow of traffic. On Jasper, the closer you get to downtown, the more pedestrian oriented it is, so that might be a place for extra focus on peds/transit and less on cars since there are alternative routes. It depends on where in the city you want to focus on retail and walkability. I’d also want to look at the APC ridership reports for the buses going through there, as transit priority could be helpful if the passenger numbers are high. Some transit priority can improve the pedestrian experience as it puts the bulk of the traffic further from the sidewalk. All of that, of course, depends on how progressive your location transportation leaders are. Also I can see there’s work going on over on 102 avenue for the bikes so that’s helpful too.

    In terms of pedestrians, I would be interested in doing a study of where people hang out currently in order to inform the streetscape you develop. Counterintuitively, it’s the people who are not walking through that gives a community buzz and “vibrancy.” Looks like you’re still a few steps away on that though I do see some sidewalk café action starting to develop. Basically this kind of study I do is like people watching on steroids, and it gives you a visualization of how people use the street. This can tell you where to put seating, where to put shade trees, where to put places to lean and bike parking, where to build safer driveways, crossings, and the like. You’d have detailed opinions on all that and data to back them up. In other words you can maximize your vibrancy with the new design, which is of course what a retailer looks for when locating a business.

    Also helpful in these conversations can be intercept surveys to determine how shoppers are getting to the area—particularly if you have business owners reacting to the removal of their parking. Understanding their customers better could potentially get them on board for transit/bike/ped improvements.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  75. #1375

    Default

    ^Sounds like reasonable advice.
    www.decl.org

  76. #1376
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,621

    Default

    Sure it's reasonable but more accurately it's shockingly obvious. Watch how people use the street and then create stuff they might use in those places? If the tall foreheads responsible for the failed Jasper Ave. initiative didn't do this they shouldn't be in charge of stuff anymore. And frankly, it appears they didn't.

  77. #1377

    Default

    The prototype/demo improvements were slated to be removed in October. Does that mean just the things like benches, ping-pong tables, and empty container pop-up shops, or does that include the asphalt pads and temporary pylons as well? Can the asphalt pads be removed when the weather stays below freezing if you have do any patching after removing the pads?

  78. #1378
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,043

    Default

    The stretch will be returned to what it was before.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  79. #1379

    Default

    Will those asphalt pads just be lifted off the road or will repaving be needed?
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314

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
  •