Bike infrastructure booming.. Just not in YEG

[edmonton daily photo]

http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/conte...g-indianapolis


After decades of little or no attention paid to cyclists, Indianapolis has made massive strides over the past three years to encourage two-wheeled transportation, thanks in large part to a bike-friendly mayor and a small but dedicated group of advocates.

Before Greg Ballard was elected mayor in 2007, the Hoosier capitol had less than one mile of bike lanes within the city. During Ballard’s first term, road crews painted nearly 64 miles of bike lanes, and shortly after his November 2011 re-election, the mayor pledged $20 million to create an additional 75 miles of trails and lanes by 2015. Once completed, Indianapolis will have more than 200 miles of trails, greenways, and bike lanes, allowing commuter and recreational cyclists to travel nearly anywhere in the city almost entirely via the bike network.

[edmonton daily photo]

With all the cities talking about how great bike infrastructure is and all the experts edm has had in to talk about bike we have still yet to see real committal to bike infrastructure from Edmonton

[AShetsen]

The original post is grossly uninformed.

New bike lanes have been painted on 106 street, 76 Avenue, most of Garneau and Strathcona side streets. With the eliminatio9n of the yellow middle line no less. And that's only the parts of Edmonton I see daily.

[edmonton daily photo]

I am far from grossly uniformed...

Care to tell us what the city plans to spen on bike infrustructure this year? Did you go to the city consultative meetings on the new bike lanes?

I would charge that you are glossy uniformed about what is happening in other cities.. Bike Shari programs..massive install of bike infrustructure and the 20 mill for an addition 75 miles of bike lanes in indianapolis pales in comparison to the punny 15km the Coe is putting in this year.

[AShetsen]

I didn't say YOU were grossly uninformed. I said your post was. It is not the same thing, and please learn the difference. Learn to write posts without referencing the person you are writing against.

Now, getting away from personalities. Bike infrastructure is largely a matter of reassigning existing road space, of which Edmonton has lots, for the use of bicycles, and doing it in such a way that traffic-signal phases are affected in the least possible way, in other words whenever possible along roads that run parallel to the main automotive arterials but do not have too much automotive traffic.

This is what the city seems to doing, in an accelerated way. Under the circumstances to say bicycle infrastructure is not booming seems at the very least the worst kind of pessimism.

[edmonton daily photo]

It's no enough..

A little less horrible is still horrible.

Where are the the bike racks?



Where do those exist in the dt plan?

Is city isn't actually serious about promoting biking

[AShetsen]

The city is under no obligation to provide bike racks. Businesses provide parking. They can provide racks as well. The city is definitely beginning to move from a mandatory parking-space policy for businesses, and there is no need to introduce a mandatory bike-rack policy. Besides, let's be honest: there are not enough bicyclists to make anything more than what is being done economically worth while -- at least for enough people to have any effect in changing the policies.

[edmonton daily photo]

So you agree the city really serious about its bike policy?! Look at pictures.. This is what is required for a city that wants to foster bikes in its dt core! Cars just don't evaporate when you get to your destination, why do you expect bikes?

Stop making in excuses for the city.

[AShetsen]

Let me repeat what I said in my last post more clearly. If there were enough bicyclists in the city to make expansion at a more rapid pace than currently worthwhile, it would have already happened. Since it has not, it means that there aren't enough bicyclists.

[KC]

AShetson, Edmonton daily photo, could you each provide you own definitions of "booming" and properly lay out what measures you would each use to appropriately label Edmonton as a city with a booming bike infrastructure. It seems that that was the issue early in this thread. "Just not in YEG" vs "grossly uninformed".

[Medwards]

I see unused bike racks all along jasper avenue and through the downtown core, same with on whyte ave.

A bike sharing program would be nice, but how realistic? We get 4-6 months were people would actually consider bike sharing. The other six months? Not so much. We also don't have much of a concentrated populations, like the cities where bike sharing programs have been successful.

If you go to Heritage days right now, you will see big bike racks and bike storage area, much similar to the picture posted in this thread (which would appear to be at some gathering or festival as well?)

[AShetsen]

To boom, intuitively, means to proceed at a significantly faster pace than previously, with significantly greater results.

I remember the Edmonton of the seventies soon after a few "bike routes" were established and posted. There was one separate lane on 127 street, a few shared sidewalks such as the one along 122 street through the U of A farm, and a whole bunch of roads whose only bike feature was the little white-on-flue bnike sign posted every few blocks. In the eighties most of the current bike paths through the valley were paved, but nothing was done on the streets. The early-nineties bike push by Tooker Gomberg was snuffed out by Bill Smith's city councils.

Compare that to just the last three years or so. Most of the Garneau and Strathcona side streets now have separate bike lanes. The commercial strips along Whyte and 109 have bike racks aplenty. And the bike-lane expansion has now begun to affect smaller sub-arterials such as 76 Avenue, and 106 street. This last bit is particularly significant because the width available for automobile traffic has become quite smaller, and the elimination of the centre line has actually been quite successful in reducing the car speed on those streets. (I know this because I commute along there.)

So yes, I think the acceleration and the results have been significant enough to call it a (small) boom.

You may notice all my examples are from the south side. Well, I make no apologies for being a south-sider. Perhaps the hipsters in downtown and Oliver are just not as cool as they think or they'd like to be.

[Replacement]

My complaint as a regular cyclist and somebody that tries to commute in this way is that painting little cycle lines on the road and designating an adjacent pathway/sidewalk as a "bikepath" is really doing the least possible for that mode of transportation which still ends up competing with the potentially lethal effects of dancing with automobiles..

Drivers in this city are plain awful when it comes to cyclists. For instance, as a rule if I'm on a designate bike path waiting for a redlight somebody will run me over making a right hand turn if I attempt to proceed on my bike when the walk signal is on. I can point my hand foreward, make it look like I'm proceeding, and nothing works. On a bike I don't exist in this city. I've missed entire walk signals flailing my arms back and forth while 7 cars in a row proceed to turn right on a fast roll while not even considering a cyclist waiting. Note that my bike would be positioned in the direction it wants to go, this being a hint at intention.

My tirade meaning to describe that a "bike system" that increasingly puts cyclists on main roads competing with traffic in this city, with this autocentric driving behavior, is misguided if not completely irresponsible.

A few dedicated pathways I would take over any of the pretend bike trail nonsense.

The city is doing virtually nothing for bike commuters, while on paper showing all these supposed "bike trails".

[AShetsen]

Where else would you put bicyclists? On the sidewalks they are as great a menace to pedestrians as auto traffic is to them on the main roads. On the pavement with the cars unseparated? Surely not.

Constructing dedicated pathways will cost far too much, and will likely displace too many pedestrians.

No, the solution is to put special bike lanes on the roads, and at the same time combine them with other roadway engineering -- narrower lanes, wider sidewalks, corner projections, etc. -- to calm the automobile traffic. Obviously this cannot and should not be done on the true main arterials such as Calgary Trail. To put special bike lanes on mid-range roads running close in parallel, such as 106 Street, is a good compromise.

The psychology of the Edmonton yahoo behind the wheel is as terrifying to many drivers here as it is to bicyclists and pedestrians. I wish some cyclists (and drivers, and pedestrians) would stop complaining like they are something special, and realize their problems are actually everyone's problems. I can note with satisfaction that the city has begun to take traffic-calming measures more seriously, and hope this will continue.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

Where else would you put bicyclists? On the sidewalks they are as great a menace to pedestrians as auto traffic is to them on the main roads. On the pavement with the cars unseparated? Surely not.

Constructing dedicated pathways will cost far too much, and will likely displace too many pedestrians.

No, the solution is to put special bike lanes on the roads, and at the same time combine them with other roadway engineering -- narrower lanes, wider sidewalks, corner projections, etc. -- to calm the automobile traffic. Obviously this cannot and should not be done on the true main arterials such as Calgary Trail. To put special bike lanes on mid-range roads running close in parallel, such as 1906 Street, is a good compromise.

The psychology of the Edmonton yahoo behind the wheel is as terrifying to many drivers here as it is to bicyclists and pedestrians. I wish cyclists would stop complaining like they are somthing special, and realize their problems are actually everyone's problems. I can note with satisfaction that the city has begun to take traffic-calming measures more seriously, and hope this will continue.

As we construct more freeways and LRT lines we're missing a huge bike infrastructure opportunity. i.e. having adjacent bikeway corridor on those dedicated routes and ones that would underpass or overpass over intersecting arteries. Think for instance how much wider tunnels would have to be or LRT corridors would have to be to facilitate two lanes of bike traffic. I'd say about 7 feet wider.

Or think about how feasible it would be to have a small bikeway paved in the many ravines that reach out to differrent suburbs, for instance Whitemud, or Millcreek all the way to Millwoods.

[AShetsen]

Not sure where you're coming from, at least as regards LRT construction. There is a bike corridor all along the LRT line south of Health Sci, all the way to Century Park. The north-side LRT has a multi-use trail from the portal all the way to Stadium, and I believe it has been or is being extended north, to Coliseum or even Belvedere.

Do you really want to cycle through tunnels? I would see one of those as a potential security hazard.

As regards freeways... I think it makes sense to keep cyclists and pedestrians away, not least because of the exhaust fumes. Actually one of bicycle commuting's greatest dangers is the long-term respiratory damage from the pollution -- which is why bike lanes along nearby side roads make so much better sense.

[Komrade]

I was going to say I feel like more bike lines and general acceptance of cyclists is happening everyday.

Are we as good as the leading cities? Not yet. But I think we are making a good effort.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

Not sure where you're coming from, at least as regards LRT construction. There is a bike corridor all along the LRT line south of Health Sci, all the way to Century Park. The north-side LRT has a multi-use trail from the portal all the way to Stadium, and I believe it has been or is being extended north, to Coliseum or even Belvedere.

Do you really want to cycle through tunnels? I would see one of those as a potential security hazard.

As regards freeways... I think it makes sense to keep cyclists and pedestrians away, not least because of the exhaust fumes. Actually one of bicycle commuting's greatest dangers is the long-term respiratory damage from the pollution -- which is why bike lanes along nearby side roads make so much better sense.

Have you tried using it. Again its a corridor in name and map only.
Maybe its improved since but I tried using this "corridor" a couple times a year ago.

Said corridor switches from right to left of tracks multiple times without proper indication and is basically unusable with the time it takes to cross at surface intersections. That is when I wasn't taking the wrong path and accidentally deviating from the poorly marked corridor. Why it switches over I have no idea but the time lost doing so makes it better to just find another route, which most cyclists do. I'll try navigating this again sometime when I'm not rushing with an oncoming thunderstorm and have the time to figure it out.

As far as tunnels theres several underpasses in the river valley that are hidden from your view as you approach that represent possible hazards both in oncoming traffic and who might be hanging around there. I don't think its much different with any well used tunnel that has LRT, security cameras, and security personnel monitoring those cameras. That is when a train isn't going by every 5 minutes. I'd feel safe enough if thats what you're asking.

[Hilman]

They just completed a stretch on 82 street from Yellowhead going north to 137 ave.

[AShetsen]

Well, roads that end, curves and detours, and the rest of it are a feature of this city's streets. Bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers should all learn to live with it.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

After biking to and from the Heritage Festival, I have to say both the Groat Bridge and the Emily Murphy Park Bridge require expanded bicycle/pedestrian lanes. Each bridge has only side with a sidewalk, which is not acceptable at this day and age.

[edmonton daily photo]

The ocl has had to push to get a bike path down 102 ave... A common sence route for bike transit. Despite the cities claim to be serious about investing in bike transit, they were not going to put a bike lane down 102 for 3 to 4 years...mwhat has been moved to next year.

Let's not also forget that administration had bike transit as one of the things council could choose to axe in order to reduce last years tax hike.

If Edmonton wants to get serious about bike transit it needs to get serious.. 20 million would be a remarkable investment in bike transit and would go an amazi distance.

I call on the Coe to step up it's game..bike infrustucture costs a fraction of what road infrastructure does.

Step up to the plate Coe and stop making pretty plans

[edmonton daily photo]

Get one it coe..

[edmonton daily photo]

[AShetsen]

Magnet for thieves.

[IanO]

Biking around today,it was disgraceful how poorly maintained certain routes were kept

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

Magnet for thieves.

You are just bitter that people have disagreed with you.

[AShetsen]

Bitter? EDP, your quickness to jump to deep junior-high-school level psychoanalysis is quite amusing. Keep it up, some of your fans might even applaud.

I and every one I know have had gear lost or damaged at these racks. The risk of theft could be one reason they're not yet imnipresent.

[edmonton daily photo]

That's right and please remember you might be mugged or assaulted so please don't leave your house!

Someone might steal your car so we should get rid of all the parking spaces because they are crime magnets.

Come on my friend!

[highlander]

Things are improving and there are more cyclists now than there were 5 years go. Paths are being improved. Even driver attitudes and courtesy are improving, if my experience is typical. There is still a long way to go, and there are sometimes setbacks. But things are getting better.

[The_Cat]

I think it would be also great to see wider bike paths in certain locations. For example, the sidewalk along the Groat Road exit (Emily Murphy Park Road) and Groat Road is quite narrow.

The current bike paths are on Google Maps:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=...&z=11&lci=bike

I think it would be great for the city to do bike counts on their paths.

[KC]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

That's right and please remember you might be mugged or assaulted so please don't leave your house!

Someone might steal your car so we should get rid of all the parking spaces because they are crime magnets.

Come on my friend!

Cyclists probably reduce crime. They are fast and stealthy, come out of nowhere, and can even follow crooks...

Though, are cyclists (gross generalization starts here) the type that would report a crime, or just look the other way?

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

I and every one I know have had gear lost or damaged at these racks. The risk of theft could be one reason they're not yet imnipresent.

The only place I leave my bike is in my place. Any where else it will have problems. Lock or no lock.

[AShetsen]

Indeed. If I were a business owner, I'd think twice about putting up something by my doors that would definitely attract lock-cutters. And if I were a city planner, I'd think twice about installing them on the sidewalks, too.

Of course that's a self-perpetuating problem, but I really can't see any way to "change" it. It doesn't seem possible either to "educate" thieves into not thieving nor "catch them and lock them up". Short of assigning walking cops to every busy street block.

[edmonton daily photo]

Yes so now bikes foster crime...

Please tell me more I am intrigued!

[AShetsen]

No, bikes do not foster crime. Crime just grabs 'em cause it's so easy.

[edmonton daily photo]

Right so you are saying that bikes cause crime.

Thanks for your insightful and honest feedback

[AShetsen]

Whatever.

[edmonton daily photo]

NYC bike share program

http://citibikenyc.com/

[edmonton daily photo]

Mayor Emanuel announces 34 miles of new protected bike lanes in 2012

http://www.examiner.com/article/mayo...ike-lanes-2012
Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the city is building more than 30 miles of new bicycle lanes in neighborhoods across Chicago this year, part of a planned nearly 650-mile network of biking facilities to be in place by 2020 to provide a bicycle accommodation within half-mile of every Chicagoan.


Again I point out that Edmonton gets 15 km.

[newfangled]

^ don't forget that what we do get is pretty much garbage:







From The Charrette - Abandonment Issues on the 76 Avenue and 106 Street Bike Lanes

[edmonton daily photo]

And this is a sample of what NYC gets with a promise to have more separate bike lanes added

[The_Cat]

Would it be reasonable to assume that bikes would be stolen from certain locations? Do the police have statistics?

[ike9126]

The bike path system outside the river valley in Edmonton is garbage. On road bike lanes are often poorly maintained, potholed, and inconveniently placed. They seem to be more of a project to make Edmonton look like its moving ahead without actually prioritizing active transportation. Want to make a difference? Put bike lanes on roads that actually connect with destinations such as 102 ave through downtown. Change stop signs to yields (or do something else) so cyclists don't have to stop and start every 2 blocks, expending tons of energy. MAINTAIN the existing bike routes. At times its more convenient to ride outside the lanes because the bike lanes are so potholed. These are just a few of the many issues I have with the system right now.

[The_Cat]

I'm really going to be scared to go to Old Strathcona now:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...592/story.html

Crime will skyrocket!

[EveB]

Are you denying that bike thefts are a problem? I'm confused by the sarcasm.

Eve

[edmonton daily photo]

^ One poster equated bike rates with increased crime in some backhanded attempt to poke fun at this thread...

Re the article!! This is awesome.. now we need some more DT. In very high profile areas along with better bike infrastructure.

[EveB]

I understand about the one poster. And to a degree, he was right. Large aggregations of bicycles do attract bicycle thieves (which is a huge under-reported problem according to crime statistics). I would expect bicycle fans to appreciate this fact and deplore it.

Give me some credit, EDP. The sarcasm was still misplaced.

Eve

[edmonton daily photo]

I answered you honestly, no sarcasm.

[ctzn-Ed]

I like to see any new roads constructed to incorporate bike lanes; and once current existing roads are updated that they also include bike paths.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ In appropriate locations.

[AShetsen]

As far as I am concerned there are better priorities, and cycling is where it should be in the list -- quite low. If I hear a municipal politician parrot the line of the aggressive and insignificant minority about how cycling has not been getting enough, I'm much less likely to vote for them.

This doesn't mean, by the way, that I'm against cycling infrastructure expansion. I believe its rate of growth is appropriate and should not be any higher.

[edmonton daily photo]

http://streetsblog.net/2012/08/16/wh...lanes-awesome/



What’s It Like to Bike to Work on Separated Lanes? “Awesome.”

I love it! Biking down this wide industrial road with fast traffic is now easy as pie. Bikes have their own area and cars seem to respect it.

Intersections and parking lot entrances are marked with green paint to remind drivers to watch for bicyclists. Some stretches of the lane have car parking to the left, providing real protection from moving traffic.

After a while, the separated lane ends and turns into a buffered lane, which is also new. Although this design forces bicyclists to watch out for opening car doors and cars pulling out of parking spaces, there is a lot of breathing room that helps bicyclists feel more comfortable.

Biking my entire commute on mostly separated bike lanes was awesome. I’m excited for the city to create more of these safer lanes.

[edmonton daily photo]

Chicago among six cities named models for dedicated bike lanes
http://www.suntimes.com/news/transpo...ike-lanes.html

It’s called the Green Lane Project, a two-year study that will support and keep tabs on the progress of Chicago and five other cities — Austin, Memphis, Portland, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. — and their efforts in creating “green lanes,” or protected bike lanes.

[Municipal Man of Mystery]

AShetsen, just curious, what are some examples of priorities you feel should be placed higher than cycling, and what should be placed lower than cycling?

Do you cycle?

[edmonton daily photo]

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/08/20...arly-complete/


Two-Way Protected Bikeway on Cargo Way Nearly Complete
by Aaron Bialick


Photo: geekstinkbreath/Flickr
San Francisco’s first on-street, two-way protected bikeway*is nearly complete, featuring bicycle traffic signals and green intersection bike markings. The bikeway, which is separated from motor vehicles by a fence and concrete median, provides a safer connection from Bayview and Hunter’s Point to Third Street and the north-south bike lanes on Illinois Street.


A bike traffic signal at Cargo Way and Mendell Street. Photo: Roy Crisman/Flickr
“It’s exciting to see this much-needed improvement in the southeastern part of San Francisco, where there is so much potential for great bicycling,” said Leah Shahum, executive director of the SF Bicycle Coalition. “We are hearing from a lot of people that this is making a real difference in improving their bike commutes. We look forward to a lot more improvements in the area, such as Bayshore Boulevard and the eastern half of Cesar Chavez.”

Construction of the bikeway, a project of the Port of SF and the SF Municipal Transportation Agency [PDF], began in March and was originally scheduled to be completed in May, though it’s unclear why it was delayed. *The fence was completed in May, and the striping was finished by July. The bike traffic signal at the Mendell Street intersection was activated*last week, though an SFMTA staffer said there’s a delay with activating the signal at the three-way intersection of Cargo Way, Illinois and Amador Streets, at the bikeway’s west end.*There, the bikeway splits into separate one-way painted bike lanes that end at Third Street.

[Admin]

OK, we now have 2 topics on the same thing. This one is closed. Talk about cycling infrastructure by CLICKING HERE.