As Edmonton continues to invest in active transportation, many cyclists and advocates have raised concerns about the design of new multi-use paths (MUPs) funded by the city's $100 million Active Transportation Rapid Implementation Plan. While MUPs can be useful in certain contexts, the ones currently being built fall far short of best practices and are less safe than Edmonton's highest-quality cycling infrastructure. Let’s break down the key differences and why Edmonton needs to do better.
Not all MUPs are built the same. The best examples in Edmonton, such as Railtown Park and the Ribbon of Steel Park, follow cycletrack principles, while the new MUPs being built under the $100M fund often resemble glorified shared sidewalks. The differences between these designs are crucial:
✅ Cycletrack-Style MUPs (High-Quality)
Fewer Intersections & Crossings – Railtown Park and Ribbon of Steel allow for uninterrupted cycling for several blocks, reducing conflict points with vehicles.
Safer Crossings – Where crossings do exist, they feature raised crossings, signal priority, and clear markings that alert drivers to cyclist presence.
Dedicated Space & Clear Markings – These cycletracks are visibly separated from pedestrian paths, ensuring safer interactions between all users.
Designed for Speed Variability – Accommodates both slower social cyclists and faster commuters, along with emerging micro-mobility devices.
🚨 $100M Fund MUPs (Lower-Quality)
Frequent, Dangerous Crossings – Built alongside roads with frequent stop-controlled intersections, driveways, and side streets where drivers regularly fail to yield.
No Intersection Safety Features – No raised crossings, inadequate signage, and lack of signalized priority means cyclists are often put in dangerous situations where vehicles do not expect them.
Shared with Pedestrians – Narrow paths force cyclists and pedestrians to mix, leading to frequent near-misses and collisions.
Not Designed for Speed Variability – The lack of space and poor design makes these paths unsafe for faster cyclists and micro-mobility users.
One of the biggest problems with MUPs is that they force cyclists and pedestrians into the same space. While this may seem harmless in theory, in practice it leads to dangerous conflicts and uncomfortable interactions for both groups:
🚶♀️ Pedestrian Concerns:
Cyclists passing too close at high speeds create an unsafe environment for walkers, joggers, seniors, and those with mobility challenges.
Many MUPs are too narrow to allow safe passing without encroaching on pedestrian space.
E-bikes, e-scooters, and other high-speed micro-mobility devices introduce a major risk for pedestrian safety.
🚴♂️ Cyclist Concerns:
Pedestrians are unpredictable—many will suddenly change direction, walk in groups that take up the whole path, or use headphones, making them unaware of approaching cyclists.
Shared space forces cyclists to constantly slow down or weave around pedestrians, making trips inefficient and frustrating.
The lack of separation often results in more conflicts and even collisions, especially when combined with high-speed users like e-bikes.
The rise of electric micro-mobility devices—e-bikes, e-scooters, and other high-speed options—has further exposed the flaws of MUPs. These devices are often capable of speeds between 30-50 km/h, vastly outpacing pedestrians and even many cyclists.
Without dedicated cycling infrastructure, we are now seeing:
Faster e-bikes and scooters forced to mix with slower pedestrians, creating hazardous conditions.
No guidance on speed management—high-speed users either endanger pedestrians or move onto the road, where they are exposed to car traffic.
A growing modal conflict that cities with proper infrastructure (such as protected bike lanes) have already addressed.
Some studies suggest that cyclists feel safer on MUPs compared to on-road infrastructure. But feeling safe is not the same as actually being safe.
🚫 Why MUPs Give a False Sense of Security:
Cyclists are invisible to drivers at intersections and driveways because MUPs are often set back from the road. Many vehicle-bike collisions happen at these locations.
No legal priority at crossings means cyclists are left vulnerable to driver inattention, failure to yield, and aggressive turns.
High conflict with pedestrians creates an environment where near-misses are frequent, but incidents are often unreported, making these issues seem less severe than they actually are.
✅ Why Protected Bike Lanes Are Safer:
They place cyclists where drivers expect them, reducing the risk of right-hook and left-cross collisions at intersections.
Dedicated traffic signals and right-of-way rules improve predictability and safety at crossings.
Cyclists get their own predictable, safe, and efficiently designed space, rather than being forced to mix with either high-speed vehicle traffic or slower pedestrians.
The City’s own research has shown that sidewalk cycling is unsafe. But the new MUPs being built are essentially glorified sidewalks, with all the same dangers:
Cyclists must cross countless intersections and driveways where drivers do not expect them.
Visibility is compromised, making collisions more likely at crossings.
Drivers frequently fail to yield, just as they do to pedestrians on sidewalks.
Cyclists are squeezed into spaces that were never designed for mixed-use movement at different speeds.
🚴♂️ If sidewalk cycling is unsafe, then why is the City building cycling infrastructure that behaves just like a sidewalk?
Instead of spending $100M on low-quality, high-conflict MUPs, Edmonton should be investing in true protected cycling infrastructure: ✅ On-street protected bike lanes that follow the Railtown Park or Ribbon of Steel models.
✅ Raised, continuous crossings at intersections that give cyclists clear priority.
✅ A winter-maintained Active Transportation Arterial Network to ensure year-round usability.
The cycling community deserves better than what is being built. It’s time for Edmonton to invest in real, high-quality cycling infrastructure that is safe, efficient, and designed for the future of active transportation.