Page 1 of 33 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 3227

Thread: Walterdale Bridge Replacement | U/C

  1. #1

    Default Walterdale Bridge Replacement | U/C

    Does anyone have any updates/details on this project?? I know that the city is looking at options. I own a loft condo on 105 St and Jasper Ave and am just curious.

  2. #2
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    From what I know a new bridge is just an idea that's been tossed around but there's been no actual proposals yet

  3. #3

    Default bridge

    I think the City is doing a feasibility study on the proposed bridge right now. I think that Gateway Blvd would be extended North across the river. Not sure where it would hook up on the North side.

  4. #4
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    hint...bye bye Walterdale...

    Where everything collects right now (105/103/101) at River Valley Road will probably be the first set of lights, or maybe just a bit past....depends on how they want to utilize 97th ave.
    Onward and upward

  5. #5
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I really hope they build a small version of a ring road circling the downtown through 97av/109 st/104 ave/ whatever street that gows down past MacDonald. This way the huge amount of traffic does not T-bone Jasper Av at 105 Street. I can just see all these cars lined up all the way to the river from Jasper.

  6. #6

    Default

    Logically, any new bridge replacing Walterdale is going to tie in directly with 97th ave... it would not only be foolish to shut off the main feeder and distribution route and funnel everything up one hill, but it would be very expensive to go over the road.

    River road is open to question. A good case could be made for a bridge that goes over river road to 96th or 97th and uses those roads to get traffiv to and from river road.

    It also depends on what is to be done with Bellamy and McDougal hills.

    However, 105th street is ironically ( Considering how recently it was the seedy back alley) the logical new "main Entrance" to downtown. I don't think we ned to worry about a huge traffic problem at 105th and Jasper though. Both are big wide roads, and a new bridge would not increase traffic volume so much, as smooth the flow of what is already there... the greatest traffic increase would be on theavenuses just south of Jasper, for a block or two on eihter side of 105th. And even that would depend on what is done with Bellamy and McDougal I think.

  7. #7

    Default Walterdale Bridge Replacement | Proposed/Discussion

    Oh, for a new downtown bridge

    Thu, June 7, 2007, Edmonton Sun
    By GRAHAM HICKS


    Overheard, a front desker at Sutton Place Hotel giving directions to a first-time driver in Edmonton coming into the city from the south.

    "Drive up Gateway Boulevard until it ends. Turn a hard right, then immediately a hard left.

    "Take the road with the hairpin turns down into the river valley.

    "Turn right across the bridge, turn right again, follow the curve.

    "Keep going straight-ish once you cross 97 Avenue, stay to your right but not too far right.

    "Follow the curvy road up out of the river valley into the downtown.

    "You should end up on 101 Street and we're three blocks down."

    --30--

  8. #8

    Default

    Yes, Edmonton so needs a new downtown bridge!

    I am involved with a national conference next week and drivers (yes, I am one of them!) have been delegated to transport speakers to and from YEG to the Sutton Place Hotel to avoid conversations like the one that Graham relates.

  9. #9
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,966

    Default

    109st works well
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #10
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,966

    Default

    99 st isnt hard
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #11
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    30

    Default

    I've always thought that if a new bridge was not in the cards a connection to and improvements to 99 Street from Gateway would work.

  12. #12

    Default

    ^ I am more than familiar with the routes to transverse the south to downtown Edmonton (actually the hairpin at Sask. Drive is a blast and I love taking this corner, sorry SDM) but this does not negate the fact that another downtown bridge is needed.

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Even if we got a new downtown bridge I can't see anyway that it would go from top-of-valley to top-of-valley. There's just no route for it that wouldn't require massive destruction of existing (and expensive) property. You'd still have to meander down to the river, and then back up again.

    So if we got a new bridge it might lessen traffic volumes a bit on the existing bridges, but it wouldn't make giving directions any easier.

    (The Calgary Tr/Sask Dr/Queen Mary Park Road transition needs to be de-crazyfied though.)

  14. #14
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    ^ I am more than familiar with the routes to transverse the south to downtown Edmonton (actually the hairpin at Sask. Drive is a blast and I love taking this corner, sorry SDM) but this does not negate the fact that another downtown bridge is needed.
    I don't disagree that a new bridge would really help, but in the meantime...

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Even if we got a new downtown bridge I can't see anyway that it would go from top-of-valley to top-of-valley. There's just no route for it that wouldn't require massive destruction of existing (and expensive) property. You'd still have to meander down to the river, and then back up again.

    So if we got a new bridge it might lessen traffic volumes a bit on the existing bridges, but it wouldn't make giving directions any easier.

    (The Calgary Tr/Sask Dr/Queen Mary Park Road transition needs to be de-crazyfied though.)
    I agree there is no way that it will demystify getting from south to north (or vice-versa) but it will give another option and WILL lessen traffic volumes/congestion.

    I would miss that crazy Calgary Tr/Sask Dr to Q Park road but acknowledge that it needs to be cleared up.

    (Like the Rat hole...I loved driving through it but was cognizant that it had to go in the name of progress--and look at that corner now!)

  16. #16
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Riverbend
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Can anyone tell me where such a proposed bridge would actually start and end? I would guess it would start at the end of Gateway Blvd, but where would it end? As someone above alluded to, you would end up in the middle of Rossdale, and that just won't work.

    And ... I can't take credit for coming up with this, but I'd like to propose a name for this bridge, should it ever get built -- the Decore Bridge, because it goes to "de core" of the city.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bornandraised
    Can anyone tell me where such a proposed bridge would actually start and end? I would guess it would start at the end of Gateway Blvd, but where would it end? As someone above alluded to, you would end up in the middle of Rossdale, and that just won't work.

    And ... I can't take credit for coming up with this, but I'd like to propose a name for this bridge, should it ever get built -- the Decore Bridge, because it goes to "de core" of the city.
    ^

  18. #18
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,966

    Default

    The bridge would likely do a cut and cover under Sask.drive to allow for a better grade to grade allowance.

    That big grass hill south and across from rossdale would be the south footing and 105st would be the north link with the north footing in the flats.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  19. #19
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    and on the other side it would end before 97 Ave most likely.

    I think if this is ever built, traffic should be split on 97 ave to downtown west (and the government district/ MacEwan) and downtown East (and the arts/ business district).

    the 105th should be more of a local access road that can be returned to being two-way.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    109st works well
    right - so long as there's no traffic.

  21. #21
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    There are plans for this bridge that exist since Mayor Dantzer's time - and that grassy "knoll" on the south side of the Wlaterdale is the approach.

    Ian said it correctly.....
    Onward and upward

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    If the original point of Hicks article is how difficult it is to give directions into downtown...

    And if any new bridge will still involve a trip down into the river valley...

    Then why don't we do this:

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    The bridge would likely do a cut and cover under Sask.drive to allow for a better grade to grade allowance.
    with Gateway Blvd right now and use the Walterdale as is?

  23. #23
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    Not to beat an old horse to death, but I did propose a way to eliminate the hairpins a while ago. It's something that can be done right now, while the city studies and re-studies and re-studies a new bridge.

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...pic.php?t=1186

  24. #24

    Default

    I vote for the Sonic Death Monkey road improvements.

  25. #25
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    Rather than adding a new bridge somewhere I vote to replace the Walterdale bridge from a 2 lane to a 3 or 4 lane bridge. Also I agree to eliminate the hairpin turns at sask drive and make the roadway much more free flow traffic friendly for traffic coming from 103rd.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  26. #26
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Not to beat an old horse to death, but ...
    That poor old horse has been given a number of possible solutions to eliminate the hairpin turns as you come downtonw and some of them are cheaper than new bridges (at least possible) and tunnels (which aren't) that won't happen even if they are needed...

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...h+level+bridge

  27. #27

    Default Build This already!

    Where ever did our city's plan for the future go?


  28. #28

    Default

    We've always been good at planning.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Indeed, if we had built *half* of what the City planned...WOW.

    That is the reason that Hawrelak is my single favourite mayor. Say what you will about the alledged corruption and what not, but he got things done.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  30. #30
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    We've always been good at planning.
    ... and panning.

  31. #31
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Summerside
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    The problem with Edmonton is we always listen to the whinners, and don't take risks.

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    That would be awesome. Where and when is that from?
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  33. #33
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 24karat
    That would be awesome. Where and when is that from?
    I would guess late '40s to early '50s. It was unrealistic then and it's just as unrealistic now.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by 24karat
    That would be awesome. Where and when is that from?
    I would guess late '40s to early '50s. It was unrealistic then and it's just as unrealistic now.
    I don't think it was unrealistic then, as it was part of the massive transportation plan to surround DT with freeways.

    However, that bridge looks to be shown to the east of the low level or walterdale and both those areas are unrealistic now.

  35. #35
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    That would be an awesome bridge to build between Gateway Blvd and 105 St downtown!!

  36. #36

    Default

    I know for a fact that one of the footings for this bridge was constructed and is currently buried under a mound of soil immediately east of the Walterdale bridge on the south side. I think it was done in the early 80's. I know they also did alot of earth moving to realign Queen Elizabeth park road to eventually lead to the new bridge...which would have been much higher than the Walterdale.

  37. #37
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,185

    Default Re: Build This already!

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Where ever did our city's plan for the future go?
    Uhmmmm.....dunno. Is it just me or does it look like all the traffic is headed south?

    Cool pic, btw!

  38. #38
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: Build This already!

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Where ever did our city's plan for the future go?
    I'm still waiting for the flying cars.

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default Re: Build This already!

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Where ever did our city's plan for the future go?
    Oh, btw, they're filed in the Heritage Room of the Milner
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  40. #40

    Default Re: Build This already!

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Where ever did our city's plan for the future go?
    Oh, btw, they're filed in the Heritage Room of the Milner
    more meant why weren't some of them followed?

  41. #41

  42. #42
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    In the last ten years that I've lived in Edmonton, I've taken that route a grand total of once.

    99 Street is Edmonton's best kept secret.

  43. #43
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Let's study the studies

    99th is alright from Saskatchewan Drive, but anywhere further south it's a rather ugly, run down road.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  44. #44
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default Mayor touts new bridge

    link

    Mayor touts new bridge
    Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: 3:37 pm

    EDMONTON - A proposal for a long-discussed new bridge across the North Saskatchewan River to improve downtown access will be released within the next three months, Mayor Stephen Mandel says.

    "There was lots of concern about 23rd Avenue and traffic blockage there," he said today.

    "One only has to come downtown on weekdays to see the trouble getting downtown."

    The mayor said he'd like to see a four-lane structure put up on the site of the two-lane Walterdale Bridge, which must be replaced within 10 years.
    “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

  45. #45

    Default

    It's about time but they should build a 6 lane bridge instead of a 4 lane bridge. You will be glad you did in the future...

  46. #46
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH
    You will be glad you did in the future...
    remember this is Edmonton. we don't talk that way in my city!

  47. #47
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Glad to see they're looking at 4 lanes. Although if 6 lanes can be accommodated it's definitely worth looking at. Even if the extra lanes are used for public transit or just to accommodate future growth.
    How long to bridges last before they need to be replaced anyways?

  48. #48
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Depends on how they are maintained....LLB north is ~100 years
    Onward and upward

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH
    It's about time but they should build a 6 land bridge instead of a 4 land bridge. You will be glad you did in the future...
    A 6 lane bridge would defintly make more sense than a 4 lane. Gateway Blvd has 3-4 lanes in one direction, so there would be a major bottle neck if you have a 4 lane street narrowing down to 2 lanes.

  50. #50
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...but how much peels off Gateway around the Whyte/Argyle area?
    Onward and upward

  51. #51
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I'll support the Walterdale replacement if it means the High Level goes back to two directions and is transit only or tolled during peak.

    How is 4 going to be a bottleneck if it's more than/equal to what we have now?

  52. #52
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    239

    Default

    I'm not sure if it's my high hopes, but is he talking another HLB to get rid of the hairpin turn? OH I HOPE SO!

  53. #53

    Default

    Could the mayor be talking about another bridge for the AHD to cross the NSR in the NE part of the COE?

    NE1 else love acrnnms?

  54. #54
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    hahaha

    Odds are, it won't be bank to bank....more likely Dantzer's plan with modifications...
    Onward and upward

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Could the mayor be talking about another bridge for the AHD to cross the NSR in the NE part of the COE?

    NE1 else love acrnnms?
    Acronyms r my bff!

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,263

    Default

    The bridge will more than likely be 5 or 6 lanes, particularly if a lane will be reserved for future HST.

    It also will not be bank to bank. It's a cut a fill job here kids.

  57. #57
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    109

    Default

    I usually get away not comuting in rush hour, but occasionally, I'm on the bus between 8 and 9 in the morning, chosing to leave the car at home when transit is at hand. The only time I notice congested traffic is when there's been a slight fender bender, and the drivers don't think to pull completely off the road.

    Again is it just me, or is traffic really not a problem even during rush hour? Driving in Edmonton is like driving in a city half its size, there's so much open space on the roadways. Of course it's slower during rush hour... but rush hour in Edmonton really is just one hour.

    But I digress... I know the Walterdale needs to be replaced relatively soon, so I hope something will be done to sort out the traffic flow in and out of downtown. The one-way bridges and roads were the bane of my existence for the first 8 months living here. Why can't I go back south after physiotherapy, a swim, or a workout at Kinsmen, rather then crossing the river, only to cross it again???

  58. #58
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    hahaha

    Odds are, it won't be bank to bank....more likely Dantzer's plan with modifications...

    Who's Dantzer? and what was his plan?

    Thanks

  59. #59
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,309

    Default

    I think one of two options are possible:

    (1) Build a six-lane bridge across the North Saskatchewan River at the Queen Elizabeth Park alignment, eventually merging onto Rossdale Road. The South end would merge onto Calgary Trail.

    (2) Build a new six-lane bridge across the river at the Walterdale Alignment. Realign the bridge slightly to avoid the Ancestral Burial Ground.

    One more thing that should be considered: A better turnoff from 98 Avenue to Connors Road to downtown.

  60. #60

  61. #61
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,966

    Default

    IMO WLRT to WEM is more of a priority than this.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  62. #62
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    The bridge will more than likely be 5 or 6 lanes, particularly if a lane will be reserved for future HST.

    It also will not be bank to bank. It's a cut a fill job here kids.
    ..or future high speed rail ROW from Edmonton to Calgary.

  63. #63
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis


    Who's Dantzer? and what was his plan?

    Thanks
    Vincent Martin Dantzer

    Edmonton Mayor appointed in 1965 when William Hawrelak was ousted. Won in 1966. Didn't seek re-election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Martin_Dantzer

    That grassy knoll to the east of Queen E Hill that looks like an abandoned bridge approach IS an abandoned bridge approach. Often referred to Dantzer's Hill, or Dantzer's folly. It was an attempt to do exactly what ChrisD alludes to - and what will more than likely be the solution some 40 years later.

    So, not HIS plan...but done when he was mayor...
    Onward and upward

  64. #64

    Default

    Everytime someone mentions a "new" bridge into downtown I think of this...


  65. #65
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ah...back when Edmonton dared to dream big...and stood up for itself.
    Onward and upward

  66. #66
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    ah...back when Edmonton dared to dream big...and stood up for itself.
    ...and will do so again.

  67. #67

    Default

    Edmonton will rise again!

    Rise up Edmonton.

    Edmonton Rising.

  68. #68
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to fall in line to what's being proposed. A bidirectional replacement bridge @ 4 lanes will likely suffice. There would be some road modifications that would obviously be necessary, but I don't feel as though Edmonton needs to go overboard on this project.

    Here's why:
    It's obvious to me that a replacement bridge should somehow fit into the master transportation plan the city has (if there exists such a plan...). What I'm getting at is that improved access to commuters downtown is important, but I think it's necessary at the same time to incent people to utilize mass transit moreso than they do currently as well.

    Feepa posted a rendering that I think is probably a good start. Bidirectional traffic (2 lanes each way) is definitely an improvement. How much of an improvement really depends on how either end is developed and the access to each. In addition, light rail access to the same structure could facilitate expansion of the LRT network.

    I'd be in favor of a 4 lane bidirectional bridge with LRT access instead of a 6 or 8 lane bidirectional behemoth without LT access. If we were to go with the larger bridge, I think it may ultimately send the wrong message to many commuters. Who knows, maybe what's best is a 6 lane bridge with LRT access, but it must fit into the objectives of how the city wants its citizens to utilize mass transit.

    This is a good opportunity to achieve the first LRT loop in the city:
    Downtown <--> University <--> Whyte/Gateway Blvd <--> Downtown

  69. #69
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,309

    Default

    When I see the 1960s sketch of the North Saskatchewan River bridge, I saw more than the bridge. I saw a bridge that united the city, much like the High Level bridge did with Edmonton and Strathcona in the early part of the 20th Century.

    I think that any new bridge going across the river has have a wow element, capturing the wonder of the river valley and downtown Edmonton.

    I think if we could have a multipurpose 5 lane bridge (two bus lanes north-south, plus a center lane that can switch direction during rush hour) to accommodate rush hour traffic. Also LRT traffic could travel underneath.

    I also think the bridge has only been reopened in the past couple of years or so. I think that C2E has mobilized Edmonton people with supporting the downtown bridge. It will be a wonderful link to the City Centre.

  70. #70
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,966

    Default

    ^i do agree that it would "unite" the south and north more but im not convinced we need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars at this point to do it. Yes it needs to be done, yes it will improve access, but perhaps spending this amount on LRT to the airport, to WEM, to millwoods will lessen our need for such things.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  71. #71
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I agree with Ian, however I say we find a way to milk the province to get the bridge built as they are pushing through HSR. Send a polite note to Ed: you want HSR to Edmonton--it has to go on the new bridge that we cannot afford to build

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    I agree with Ian, however I say we find a way to milk the province to get the bridge built as they are pushing through HSR. Send a polite note to Ed: you want HSR to Edmonton--it has to go on the new bridge that we cannot afford to build
    No, wait, let's ask for kitchen sinks every five feet. HSR indeed...
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  73. #73
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    I agree with Ian, however I say we find a way to milk the province to get the bridge built as they are pushing through HSR. Send a polite note to Ed: you want HSR to Edmonton--it has to go on the new bridge that we cannot afford to build
    No, wait, let's ask for kitchen sinks every five feet. HSR indeed...
    i guess to each their own. you ask for a kitchen sink, I will ask for a bridge. reading the above thread, mention of rail link provision is front and centre in the discussion. The province is pushing for HSR.

    I have connected the dots and arrived at: "the province should pay for the bridge." murman connected the dots and got: "kithcen sinks every five feet." wonder what dots murman was connecting? Happy posting!

  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I'd rather wait on a new bridge than to use the project to push for a HSR line. Why help further Lovian conspiracies?
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  75. #75
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    I'd rather wait on a new bridge than to use the project to push for a HSR line. Why help further Lovian conspiracies?
    no, I am saying here to use HSR to push the bridge.

  76. #76
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,277
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Using HSR to push the bridge dooms the bridge....unless the idea is to ensure that the bridge has the load capacity to be expanded to include the train.

    In actual fact though, the HSR folks won't want the new bridge tagged onto their project. They have the HLB - good 'nuff for them...
    Onward and upward

  77. #77
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Using HSR to push the bridge dooms the bridge....unless the idea is to ensure that the bridge has the load capacity to be expanded to include the train.

    In actual fact though, the HSR folks won't want the new bridge tagged onto their project. They have the HLB - good 'nuff for them...
    well, that is what I am getting at.

    I think I have made my position known on HSR. Those of you who are new to this I am all for HSR as far as making edmonton a rail travel hub goes (search for various posting I have made starting with my very first one on C2E about a Central Transportation Station)

    HSR aside, I think that the new bridge should have the capacity to handle HSR for when it becomes a reality. HLB is just not a good option for Edmonton for many reasons from sending a speeding train through Old Strathcona's quiet neighbourhoods to the lack of parking and other sapce on the north side of HLB for a proper stop.

    The new bridge should be planned to take the eventual rail line into the heart of downtown, not to mention the vehicle traffic for which the bridge is primarily being planned.

    I am saying that the province always needs major convinging when it comes to helping edmonton out with our infrastructure needs. Since the province is on record of being in love with high speed rail, why not hold them hostage to an extent to get the new bridge built? We can start by ensuring that the current ROW through HLB can never be used for HSR.

  78. #78
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    E-town!
    Posts
    409

    Default

    I just got back to Edmonton this afternoon. We need a s-n freeway. Getting downtown is a mess. The roadways look cluttered and dirty, and the snow hasn't even started falling yet.

    Gateway is just a mess.

  79. #79
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    I'd want a new bridge to be a multi-use transportation corridor like the High Level that goes from bank-to-bank (or at least from Gateway Blvd to 105 St/98 Ave).

    multi-use includes:
    - 6 lanes, 3 in each direction
    - bicycle lanes
    - pedestrian, including a midspan crossover
    - ETS buses, BRT
    - LRT to Millwoods

    And keep the Walterdale (plus QE Drive) as a 2-way span for access to the Kinsmen.
    “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

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    I'd want a new bridge to be a multi-use transportation corridor like the High Level that goes from bank-to-bank (or at least from Gateway Blvd to 105 St/98 Ave).

    multi-use includes:
    - 6 lanes, 3 in each direction
    - bicycle lanes
    - pedestrian, including a midspan crossover
    - ETS buses, BRT
    - LRT to Millwoods

    And keep the Walterdale (plus QE Drive) as a 2-way span for access to the Kinsmen.
    Sounds great - but bigger may be even cheaper in the long run. I would say, 4 lanes in each direction (or at least, build into the initial design the option of clip-on lanes). If this bridge is as good as it could be, it will attract traffic as the main route. Of course, that raises the issue of improving Gateway, or some other North / South express route. A direct North South express route close to downtown centre would make sense to me, even if it is not "trendy" today.

  81. #81
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    ^No.

  82. #82

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^Yes.
    Double yes.
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  84. #84

    Default

    Double no. :P

    Although I would support making the St. Albert Trail/ Groat Rd. /114 St/113 St/ 111 St route into a nice freeway.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Double no. :P

    Although I would support making the St. Albert Trail/ Groat Rd. /114 St/113 St/ 111 St route into a nice freeway.
    Would it be possible to straighten the twisty bit of Groat road? Perhaps it might be a lot cheaper land wise, and more direct to downtown, to somehow plough through just east of downtown through old china town? The freeway you suggest above would be more useful to me though. Maybe we need both, to service both Millwoods/Clareview, and Riverbend / St Albert coming into downtown?

  86. #86
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Would it be possible to straighten the twisty bit of Groat road?
    straighten the only remotely interesting twisty bit of road in the entire region?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  87. #87

    Default

    Sadly if it was a freeway

  88. #88
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    The 1950's called; they want their ideas back.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    The 1950's called; they want their ideas back.
    Hate to say it, but the horse bolted long ago. We have congestion now, and a generation of people growing up in the South who are afraid to ever go to downtown due to no Whitemud equivalent road to take them there (we have friends like this). It will get much worse before it gets better. No one solution will work, transit is part of it, but a better road system is too.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Would it be possible to straighten the twisty bit of Groat road?
    straighten the only remotely interesting twisty bit of road in the entire region?
    ^ Indeed where would I have fun driving?

  91. #91
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    St Albert, Alberta
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Everytime someone mentions a "new" bridge into downtown I think of this...

    now THATS what we need to see here.

  92. #92

    Default Traffic's jammed: Mayor must bridge bigger troubled waters

    City traffic's jammed
    Mayor must bridge bigger troubled waters


    Kerry Diotte
    Sun, November 4, 2007


    Article Link:
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Colu...29878-sun.html

    Re-elected Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel delivered a meaty speech last week revealing what he sees as priorities for the city.

    Among those, he listed consideration of a new hockey arena, fast-tracking the LRT extension and building a new downtown bridge.

    That latter idea is one of the most intriguing - but it's only one step toward solving a bigger problem.

    Traffic in this city is becoming a huge issue - especially movement north and south.

  93. #93

    Default Re: Traffic's jammed: Mayor must bridge bigger troubled wate

    It is an interesting article. It discusses the inner ring road (makes sense to me), but doesn't really address what seems to me to be a bigger issue, which is access to downtown, especially from the South over the river. I don't see an inner ring road as being more than a partial solution if we don't have a fast direct way to get from it to the core from the North or South.

  94. #94
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    48

    Default

    If the east side of the Inner Ring Road ever gets built, then perhaps 98 Avenue could be upgraded to a parkway/expressway/freeway to connect with Wayne Gretzky Drive and 75 Street. It would be similar to Memorial Drive in Calgary. And, it's a far, far cry from the old METS plan.

    If the Walterdale Bridge is upgraded as well as 98 Avenue, the locals would have both a freeway and arterial option for reaching Downtown.

    Also, does anyone know if there any plans to connect the Sherwood Park Freeway directly to 75 Street, should the Inner Ring ever be built along 75 Street?

  95. #95
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    The 1950's called; they want their ideas back.
    Hate to say it, but the horse bolted long ago. We have congestion now, and a generation of people growing up in the South who are afraid to ever go to downtown due to no Whitemud equivalent road to take them there (we have friends like this). It will get much worse before it gets better. No one solution will work, transit is part of it, but a better road system is too.
    It is not possible to pave one's way out of congestion. It was not possible in the past, and it certainly will not be possible in the future.

    Back in the early 70s, the resident's around the Mill Creek area fought doggedly against the City's proposal to run a downtown-Mill Woods freeway from the Scona Rd/Connors Rd intersection up Mill Creek to 91 St, and they succeeded. Today, this ravine is one of the nicest urban park spaces in Canada.

    I have no sympathy whatsoever for suburbanites who are "afraid" to go downtown because of a lack of a Whitemud-style freeway (and free parking, I presume). They can stay in suburbia and keep their pavement and cars to themselves, thanks.

    If we populate downtown with enough residents who appreciate a proper urban environment (like the West End and Yaletown in Vancouver) we don't need extraneous freeways entering the core.

  96. #96

    Default

    With a new bridge and aproach that somehow minimizes the impact of traffic accessing the whyte ave area (i.e. this new bridge and its approach back as far as old scona), I think access from the south with 98ave, connors road, 99st, Calgary trail, 109st, and groat via 116st, in conjunction with sLRT, is adequate to handle increases over the next 10 years. To be honest, regardless of the ultimate futility in trying to freeway your city out of congestion, I don't see where you could plow a limited access freeway through downtown to the north end these days. Mill Creek will never happen and if it did it would simply dump more traffic at the low level and James Mac bridges.

  97. #97
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,309

    Default

    I think the following could be done, without a whole lot of difficulty:

    (1) If the Stationlands are developed, perhaps an access road, as an extension of 99 or 100 Street that could be extended along 98 or 99 Street, joining 97 Street near 111 Avenue, and an exit towards Kingsway. 107A Avenue would have another light. 97 Street at Chinatown would be largely unaffected, and this street could have a Chinatown theme.

    (2) Eliminate most of the residential access points along 104 Avenue, keeping 116 Street, 121 Street and 124 Street. Alternatively, 107 Avenue could be upgraded to an expressway, eliminating many of the residential access points.

    (3) With the CPR yards due to be abandoned around 2010, possible considerations for a BRT/LRT route or a major expressway.

    I think that freeways, for the large part, will create more gridlock. If we shoot for more free-flow, it will give drivers more options.

  98. #98

    Default

    1) are you saying extend 100st or 99 st through the potential stationlands project? I hope the eventual project includes open lanes to connect downtown to China town but I don't think you could free flow anything through this area.

    2) many residential streets on the south side of 104ave are already cut off from 104 ave in the Oliver area. However, you have a bunch of commerical on the north. Are you talking west of 124? If so, then 107 ave would make more sense for free flow but to be honest that road flows very well as is and could easily handle another lane in each direction.

    3) LRT through here could be great. Unless you put it underground near Old Strathcona, a major express way, i.e. three to four lanes in each direction, along this route would require major land aquistion east and west of the rail ROW where new condo projects are currently been built. Not to mention, putting a massive new physical barrier smack in Old Scona.

  99. #99
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default $90 million bridge from Gateway to downtown

    CTV News' top story is Mayor Mandel following up on an election promise by proposing a $90 million bridge from the end of Gateway to River Valley Road.
    “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

  100. #100
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    looking at google maps this bridge is gonna be weird. its gonna have to be so long and can someone point out on a map where its gonna end.( i have no idea where river valley road is ) and what of telus field? Anyway i officially copyright the name "GATEWAY BRIDGE" as of now

    edit: oh wait river valley road is on the map whoops. my bad. anyway i still dont see how it will connect.

Page 1 of 33 1234511 ... LastLast

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
  •