East Village Rejuvenation Plan

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Theat ramp down to the island is just like I thought... It looks like a complete afterthought.

It looks like it was added to the bridge a while after the bridge was done.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

It's look notwithstanding it is incredibly busy and could have been wider. It was packed yesterday afternoon.

A nice wide rounded corner would have been great.

[CorporateWhore]

Yeah, that's been my one beef with St Patricks bridge from the start. They clearly underestimated the width that ramp need to be (it shouldn't have been a "ramp" in the first place, it needed to be an integral part of the design). East Village is nowhere close to being fully built out, and it's already a logjam. It could easily be twice the width. That and the way it buts up against the main deck is very jarring and potentially dangerous.

It also would've been nice to create a few traffic lines on the main deck, to help separate bikes/pedestrians a bit more. It's a little chaotic on the weekends.

[Bigtime]

When cycling on the bridge (or even the island access ramp) I figure you should be going no faster than a leisurely walking pace on the congested days. Any faster and it is just not safe (for yourself or others on the bridge).

Pathletes should take note of this and avoid it.

The above would also apply to pretty much all the pathways on the island too. Even 10km/h could be too fast on a busy day like yesterday.

[Rusty van Reddick]

I have no issue with the ramp. None. Nobody should be racing onto the island, and I like the feeling of "entrance" it gives.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I have no issue with the ramp. None. Nobody should be racing onto the island, and I like the feeling of "entrance" it gives.

Entrance? It scream "shit we ran out of money and this was the last thing we thought about so slap a ramp on there and get it done'

[McMurph]

The ramp could have been been nicer but I have no real issue with it. What I'd like to see is a bridge over the north channel from the LRT station to better connect Bridgeland. A continuation of the current memorial drive pedestrian overpass could land right at the top of the ass-burning slides.

[Bigtime]

Ass burn no more! Those slides now have a big canvas shade over them.

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

When cycling on the bridge (or even the island access ramp) I figure you should be going no faster than a leisurely walking pace on the congested days. Any faster and it is just not safe (for yourself or others on the bridge).

I bike around there quite a bit these days, and always slow down regardless, but I find you get a lot of that "people walking backwards while taking a photo" or kids breaking away to run right into your path" type of activity on there that is is kind of a pain even when you're just a casual biker crawling along slowly. I think a little bit of demarcation would've helped, even if to just subtly let people know about the mixed used of the bridge.

Not a bad problem to have necessarily. Oh noes, our pathways and pedestrian bridges are way too popular!

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Entrance? It scream "shit we ran out of money and this was the last thing we thought about so slap a ramp on there and get it done'

The sad thing is, a nice wide rounded corner and wider ramp probably could have been done for only a bit more money.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Entrance? It scream "shit we ran out of money and this was the last thing we thought about so slap a ramp on there and get it done'

You're the one screaming. Relax. I haven't heard one peep from other visitors- just the OCD anal retented on here.

[artvandelay]

While it may be functional, the ramp was obviously an afterthought and is poorly integrated into the bridge design.

[MasterG]

The only thing wrong with St. Patricks Island - and Prince's Island, Kensington and most of the inner NW pathway system for that matter - is a 60-70km/hour nearly free-flow highway segregating the parks from all the good neighbourhoods on the other side. Perhaps a necessity when built, it's barriers like these that have to be chipped away at to truly take these developments and neighbourhoods to the next level.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

The only thing wrong with St. Patricks Island - and Prince's Island, Kensington and most of the inner NW pathway system for that matter - is a 60-70km/hour nearly free-flow highway segregating the parks from all the good neighbourhoods on the other side. Perhaps a necessity when built, it's barriers like these that have to be chipped away at to truly take these developments and neighbourhoods to the next level.

Agreed. The north side of the Bow river has much less traffic on the pathways.

What would you propose as a solution?

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Agreed. The north side of the Bow river has much less traffic on the pathways.

What would you propose as a solution?

Personally, I think they need to put the same amount of effort they did on the south side, to the north side. It's going to be trickier, as the pathway is narrower in parts, but I can see lots of room for improvement.

First, they need to widen the paths as much as possible. In some places this might mean going even closer to Memorial or building the pathway out over the river edge. It's a big problem though (especially west of Centre St Bridge) as it gets really tight and somewhat dangerous when there's lots of traffic. Right now most people avoid the north side because of the narrow lanes especially.

Second, installing noise barriers, where possible, would be a huge help to make it feel a little more welcoming. The bike paths east of St Patricks are especially noisy, as speed and traffic picks up. Installing some noise barriers (wether natural or man-made) would go a huge way of making that section of the paths more enjoyable.

Apart from another bridge over (or tunnel under) Memorial to Bridgeland, I also think we're going to need another bridge at some point to get to the middle of St Patricks island. A pedestrian bridge going from the Bridgeland LRT spot across the river to the St. Patricks childrens park would be ideal, as it cuts off a lot of time both for pedestrians and cyclists.

That's at least my "no consideration of costs" vision.

[The Fisher Account]

Bridge from the Bridgeland LRT to SPI is key. Don't think there is the political will to make it happen unfortunately.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Bridge from the Bridgeland LRT to SPI is key. Don't think there is the political will to make it happen unfortunately.

That would be a "nice to have" but I think connectivity now for that area is more than adequate. Justifying tens of millions to improve from a rather decent current situation would lack political will for very good reason.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Personally, I think they need to put the same amount of effort they did on the south side, to the north side. It's going to be trickier, as the pathway is narrower in parts, but I can see lots of room for improvement.

First, they need to widen the paths as much as possible. In some places this might mean going even closer to Memorial or building the pathway out over the river edge. It's a big problem though (especially west of Centre St Bridge) as it gets really tight and somewhat dangerous when there's lots of traffic. Right now most people avoid the north side because of the narrow lanes especially.

Second, installing noise barriers, where possible, would be a huge help to make it feel a little more welcoming. The bike paths east of St Patricks are especially noisy, as speed and traffic picks up. Installing some noise barriers (wether natural or man-made) would go a huge way of making that section of the paths more enjoyable.

Apart from another bridge over (or tunnel under) Memorial to Bridgeland, I also think we're going to need another bridge at some point to get to the middle of St Patricks island. A pedestrian bridge going from the Bridgeland LRT spot across the river to the St. Patricks childrens park would be ideal, as it cuts off a lot of time both for pedestrians and cyclists.

That's at least my "no consideration of costs" vision.

I don't know if as much effort is warranted on the north side, however, on more than one occasion I've advocated for the redevelopment of the curling club and parking lot north of prince's island and at the bottom of the crescent heights stairs (possibly partially up the embankment).

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Agreed. The north side of the Bow river has much less traffic on the pathways.

What would you propose as a solution?

The biggest improvement would be a rule change for all inner-city roads that mandates accessibility ( I will define "accessibility" as making every effort to allow all travel modes to travel safely at all intersections) over vehicular traffic efficiency and speed in all situations possible. Montreal & Toronto for example, they have almost zero inner-city side-streets that don't have a 4-way stop on each intersection. The result is less noise, less speeding and more advantage to pedestrians. We should stop pretending that we can satisfy both car-commuters in a 1.2 million person city and a healthy and safe inner city.

If money and political will were no object, here are some more specific ideas for the River:

• Reduce speed to 50km/h from Shaganappi to Bridgeland
• Create signalize intersection every 3 to 4 blocks and un-sync them to reduce traffic speed and green-wave walls of traffic all moving at high-speed. Off the top of my head: Parkdale Cresent NW, 32 Street NW, 27 Street NW, Kensington Road NW, 19th Street NW, Peace Bridge, 5A Street NW, 3 Street NW.
• Add pedestrian bulbs where needed.
• Give priority to Memorial Drive at these lights, but significantly shorter cycle-times so pedestrians and cars can cross/turn easily.
• Remove all median separation, shift road north in space.
• In space that was vacated with the shifting road, add additional pathway and green space.

None of it is revolutionary (except to highway engineers), but the principal enemy of the river pathway on the north shore is loud, high-speed cars that flow without interruption. Anything that can slow them down, the better. Memorial is more of a barrier - physically and psychologically - than the Bow River is in many places.

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That would be a "nice to have" but I think connectivity now for that area is more than adequate. Justifying tens of millions to improve from a rather decent current situation would lack political will for very good reason.

It's definitely not a "must have" at the moment, but for a pedestrian from Bridgeland, getting to St Patricks Island is actually a bit of a zig-zaggy walk right now. When you get across the LRT bridge to the pathway, you can see where you want to be across the river, but you have quite a bit of a walk ahead of you to get around it. It's not unlike the Peace Bridge/Memorial crossing situation where you want to walk forward, but have to take the long way around. Not a deal-breaker...but north of Memorial lies probably the biggest user base for the park (along with Inglewood/Ramsay residents), so ideally the access would be a lot easier.

Also, the current 12th St bridge to the Zoo is actually quite terrible for pedestrian/cyclists. It's just a regular raised sidewalk next to the road, so it's way too narrow as soon as you get multiple pedestrians/cyclists/joggers etc on there.

I'm sure it will be some time before the capital is there to tackle these issues, but they are there to be tackled.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't know if as much effort is warranted on the north side, however, on more than one occasion I've advocated for the redevelopment of the curling club and parking lot north of prince's island and at the bottom of the crescent heights stairs (possibly partially up the embankment).

You mean the low lying area that was underwater in the floods? I thought we were moving away from developing those areas, didn't we just buy out a bunch of property in flood zones to prevent this?