Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cyclists and Pedestrians should share sidewalks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cyclists and Pedestrians should share sidewalks

    ..or so says David Staples: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Stapl...474/story.html


    I’ve always wondered why the major push for bike lanes in Edmonton didn’t centre on sharing sidewalks and multi-use paths. While cars and bikes don’t mix so well and road space is at a premium, most of us have useless front yards. Perhaps folks might be more amenable to selling off a few feet of front yard for a wider sidewalk/bike path than to lose the parking in front of their house for a bike lane.

  • #2
    No.

    The cyclist is a big a menace to the pedestrian as it is to the motorist.

    I suspect Staples can neither cycle nor walk.

    Comment


    • #3
      No. Dedicated bike lanes or get the **** out.

      No more half assing bike infrastructure.
      be offended! figure out why later...

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, bike lanes > wider sidewalks, but he does have a good point about useless front yards. All of the people who whine about the street parking in front of their houses being converted into a bike lane should be able to vote on whether they want to have the city move the sidewalk over by 2 m so there will be room for both.

        As for biking on sidewalks, it is the best place for slow, timid cyclists, but anyone wanting to cycle faster than 15 km/h (jogging speed) should go elsewhere.
        Last edited by Titanium48; 08-08-2015, 06:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Front yards are not useless.

          They offer the same minimal separation, horizontally, that living on the third floor and higher provides vertically.

          They are essential for privacy. Without them residential streets become instant slums.

          Comment


          • #6
            ^ Streets are wider than alleys (and some subdivisions don't even have alleys), so it makes sense for the front setback to be substantially smaller than the rear setback. I have visited a number of houses where the house across the street was quite far away and the rear neighbor was uncomfortably close, but I have never seen the reverse. Besides, widening the street ROW by shrinking front yards would not change the distance between houses.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Titanium48 View Post
              ^ Streets are wider than alleys (and some subdivisions don't even have alleys), so it makes sense for the front setback to be substantially smaller than the rear setback. I have visited a number of houses where the house across the street was quite far away and the rear neighbor was uncomfortably close, but I have never seen the reverse. Besides, widening the street ROW by shrinking front yards would not change the distance between houses.
              And less stinkin useless lawn to mow!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AShetsen View Post
                They are essential for privacy. Without them residential streets become instant slums.
                There are countless residential properties with no front lot and they are hardly slums. Can you back up your claims?





                Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  My reading of the idea, is not to stick bikes on existing sidewalks, but instead, to widen sidewalks (taking a few feet of property rather than road), and having a divider down the middle, so that bikes can safely pass pedestrians, like you see in mixed use trails all over Edmonton. I like the idea, but:

                  1. This is fine for neighbourhoods with alleyways, but when there are garages on the road, I think it could be quite dangerous with bikes moving fast (people aren't trained to look sideways when reversing before the road)
                  2. I'm guessing there will, be lots of self righteous horror from people losing a foot or two of grass (although in older neighbourhoods there is often grass between street and sidewalk)
                  3. Might lose a lot of beautiful old trees.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Show me one other major city that has converted sidewalks for bicycles?

                    It just does not work. There are too many conflicts at intersections. Bicycles are designed for being on roads. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. I do not feel safe cycling on sidewalks.
                    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well Staples claims it's done in Tokyo.

                      I lived near Tokyo, and yes it's done there, but space issues and road safety is a completely different ballgame there. In comparison, sidewalks are extremely small and cramped here along our super wide speedways.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Shared sidewalks can work in some places. Multi-use trails work OK, but only where traffic is sparse, and even in the river valley most paths are well enough used that there should be separate space for each.

                        The city seems to be paranoid about giving pedestrians or cyclists enough space. Our multi-use trails are typically 3m wide, which might be wide enough if they were just for one more, but they're really too narrow for multi-use. Then the city narrows them further by adding swing barricades in stead of bollards, just to make them narrower and more dangerous. Then they design even tighter pinch points in at important intersections and apparently there's no one at the city who knows enough about cycling or pedestrian design to notice.

                        Take the new LRT line, for example. I know it's a horrible design all over, but it's particularly bad design for pedestrians and cyclists. At MacEwan station, through which 105avenue is supposed to be a priority active transportation corridor, the current mixed use sidewalk has a light pole right in the middle of a crosswalk ramp, bottlenecks down to 1.6m wide at the track crossing(and station entrance), and takes a narrow sidewalk around a completely unnecessary cul-de-sac bulb, again under 2m wide and obstructed by a signand a fire hydrant. Just south of 111ave the constricted by a big crossing arm and pedistal that takes up about 1/3 of its width.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Don't get me started on the "shared use" trails by the Kingsway station or MacEwan stations. It's city incompetence at it's finest. Maybe people should just bike down the middle of the tracks since they're good for nothing else right now anyways.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ^ No kidding. How hard would it have been to do it right and put the trail on the south side of the tracks next to the new arena so the crossing would be at 102 St where the tracks are still underground?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              We have spent enough on bike lanes, how's that working for us.Bikes can get off my path though.
                              Animals are my passion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X