Page 2 of 35 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 3451

Thread: Walterdale Bridge Replacement | U/C

  1. #101
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    OH ya here are some of my requirements for this bridge:

    1. must be dead sexy. the sexier the better

    2. It should have sexy lighting

    3. It should be designed in such a way that when you go over it, you get the most sexy, and spectacular view of the downtown possible. (kinda like cowtowns center street(i think thats what its called))

  2. #102
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW
    OH ya here are some of my requirements for this bridge:

    1. must be dead sexy. the sexier the better

    2. It should have sexy lighting

    3. It should be designed in such a way that when you go over it, you get the most sexy, and spectacular view of the downtown possible. (kinda like cowtowns center street(i think thats what its called))
    Please clarify what you mean by "sexy".

  3. #103

    Default

    Hmmm. If a utilitarian concrete interchange is $230 million, how much sexy bridge can we get for $90 million?

    I'm not sure we're going to get a mini-Millau with that sort of budgetary ceiling. It sounds suspiciously like a reworked Dantzer's Hill bridge, with some road massaging at either end. There's no way to have a span go from the top of the valley (Gateway) to the bottom of the valley (River Valley Road).

  4. #104
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    that was my thought...23 ave is uber $$$$ due to sewer lines and everything else, so we get an "all in" price of 230, but I am to believe an "all in" for 90 mil?
    Onward and upward

  5. #105
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    From moahunter's post on another thread:

    This would be a great bridge, if it could be built from top of valley to top of valley, especially it was had a distinctive lighting dispaly. The only bad thing would then be where it would connect to on the north side.

  6. #106
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle
    Hmmm. If a utilitarian concrete interchange is $230 million, how much sexy bridge can we get for $90 million?

    I'm not sure we're going to get a mini-Millau with that sort of budgetary ceiling. It sounds suspiciously like a reworked Dantzer's Hill bridge, with some road massaging at either end. There's no way to have a span go from the top of the valley (Gateway) to the bottom of the valley (River Valley Road).
    maybe we should do it the other way and keep the traffic on the ground and divert the north saskatchewan river onto a bridge over the traffic instead...

    http://www.wltc.org/Documents/WaterBridge.htm
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #107

    Default

    Well, it's from 2005, it's in american dollars and not our red hot economy, but the Peace Bridge in Buffalo that's proposed is actually a pretty nice piece of bridge.

    I was doing research to back up my claim of fugly for $90 million, but looks like I can eat a little crow or cake too.


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

    http://www.peacebridgex.com/

  8. #108
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Nope, given the $$$, it is Dantzer's "folly" to "fruition"....
    Onward and upward

  9. #109

    Default


    $90 million-ish.. (see above caveats)

    EDIT: Corrected, revised construction figures put this at $120-130m.

  10. #110
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    your caveats, plus the questions I have akin to ralph60 on C of E project accounting, make me think that this bridge here is more than 90 million. We include everything and the kitchen sink in our projects.
    Onward and upward

  11. #111

    Default

    I'm 90% sure it'll be a lot closer to a sow's ear than a silk purse, but dare to dream, dare to dream...

  12. #112
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Someone must know...

    Are there many bridges that exist that are relatively short and have significant elevation differences at either end?

    Google Earth tells me that the length of the bridge will be in the range of 2500 - 3000 ft long and have an elevation differential of approximately 150 ft.

    This works out to be in the range of a 3 - 4 degree slope. Is that too much? Just wonderin'

    Would the approach be lowered on Gateway? Where exactly are the proposed take-off and landing points? Since we already have an estimate, is there a copy of the plan that's available?

  13. #113
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude
    Someone must know...

    Are there many bridges that exist that are relatively short and have significant elevation differences at either end?

    Google Earth tells me that the length of the bridge will be in the range of 2500 - 3000 ft long and have an elevation differential of approximately 150 ft.

    This works out to be in the range of a 3 - 4 degree slope. Is that too much? Just wonderin'

    Would the approach be lowered on Gateway? Where exactly are the proposed take-off and landing points? Since we already have an estimate, is there a copy of the plan that's available?
    The CTV news story showed a crude graphic that displayed the span from the end of Gateway Blvd to near the intersection at 105 St and River Valley Road or where the north end of the Walterdale bridge is. Not sure how workable that is with the Rossdale Plant and the burial ground there.

    Another question would be, what happens with the Walterdale bridge? Will it be kept open for access to the Kinsmen, or for traffic from 109 St?

    As for the grade, they can always lower Gateway Blvd so that it tunnels under Sask Drive.
    “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

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude

    This works out to be in the range of a 3 - 4 degree slope. Is that too much? Just wonderin'
    My maths might be wrong on this, not sure how degrees convert into percentages, but I think it is fesable. As an example, the Otira Viaduct has a gradient of 12%, 1 meter fall in every 9 meters. This was built in harsh conditions - plenty of snowfall, and earthquake risk. This one was only about C$19m, in the middle of no-where, in 1998:

    http://www.apoec.org.nz/viaduct.htm


  15. #115

    Default

    In wondering about the price, is it possible that this is only the City's tab, and the province would have to kick in the other 75-something percent as well?

    I would really hope this not be attempted unless it can be afforded to be done properly. (i.e., very good looking, long lasting, good serving.) And if Stelmach is really serious about HST, would that not beg integration into this project?

  16. #116

    Default

    I'd all be for integration except we need the bridge tomorrow and HST after 20 more years of growth like the last 3. Let Stelmach worry about the bridges for his white elephant.

  17. #117

    Default

    I'm not trying to wade into that issue, but just wonder if it would be on the agenda for the province, if their funds are going to be required.

    (I think I should have edited that to put that last sentence on the first paragraph.)

  18. #118
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle
    , but dare to dream, dare to dream...
    I will....
    Onward and upward

  19. #119
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,416

    Default

    I like the idea of the bridge linking Gateway with downtown, but I think I'd like to know more how exactly it will connect with downtown. This will likely mean a significant increase in traffic as a result of improved access and growth in South Edmonton population.

    What would the Gateway Bridge span? With the CPR abandoning the Strathcona Yards, could we tunnel down starting at 76th Avenue? And where should it end in the north? Should it include a provision for LRT?

    Whatever the case, we will likely need a multi-purpose bridge that could accommodate LRT.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I like the idea of the bridge linking Gateway with downtown, but I think I'd like to know more how exactly it will connect with downtown. This will likely mean a significant increase in traffic as a result of improved access and growth in South Edmonton population.

    What would the Gateway Bridge span? With the CPR abandoning the Strathcona Yards, could we tunnel down starting at 76th Avenue? And where should it end in the north? Should it include a provision for LRT?

    Whatever the case, we will likely need a multi-purpose bridge that could accommodate LRT.
    Note that, according to CPR, they have no intention of abandoning their Strathcona yard. But they are intending to move their existing intermodal yard (land between 34 and 39 avenues leased from the province) to their new intermodal site at the south end of the city.

    I suggest as well that LRT will in no way be associated with the new bridge. There is simply no reasonable way to get from the existing line to the site of the new bridge structure.

    As for possible roadway alignment, here are some considerations. First up is the graphic from the CTV news bit.



    Taken literally, the alignment might look something like the following. However, the grade seems absurdly steep and the bridge length too long to be practical. I thought I heard Mandel say something about the road being tiered (as opposed to a single slope?).




    I think ideally that the Gateway Bridge connection would tunnel part way underground and exit across the existing prepared ramp. Further, I think the north-end exit would best be situated at the apparently soon-to-be-dismantled HP Plant (the EPCOR building with three stacks) and 104 Street and Rossdale rather than 105 Street. But tunnelling is uber expensive so this seems unlikely to occur.




    I'm guessing reality would see the north-slope grade mediated by cutting under Saskatchewan Drive (requiring a bridge). Perhaps something like this, assuming there aren't restrictions at the north end due to the Traditional Burial Ground memorial site. (Otherwise, the HP Plant suggestion may be required.)




    It seems to me that the bridge concept requires improved access from the south. Assuming the Gateway Bridge is intended to be two way (with lane control?), I think that an expanded two-way Gateway Boulevard, bounded on the west by a north-bound-only service road, would improve Whyte Avenue congestion at both 104 and 105 streets. Without going into details of connectivity and access restirctions, the south end of the road could be a split just south of the NAIT building at 71 Avenue (ie southbound traffic continues on Calgary Trail). This would require some expropriation of property.




    Of course I don't have a real clue. I hope someone associated with the study can shed some light. Regardless, I fully expect the $90-million price tag doesn't include the whole shebang, whatever the full concept might include.

  21. #121
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Keep in mind that the EPCOR Rossdale Plant will be decommissioned but not knocked down due to historical designation.

    And don't discount the possibility of having this include a possible LRT line. There is still a need for LRT from downtown to Millwoods and this new bridge could accommodate it (never say that something can't be done). Overall, I want to see any new bridge allow for multi-use - car, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and rail (LRT, HSR).
    “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

  22. #122
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Overall, I want to see any new bridge allow for multi-use - car, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and rail (LRT, HSR).
    It sounds good when you say it quickly. But the more functions a single facility is expected to perform, the more you must compromise its design and the greater the impact of its loss. What will happen when you have to shut down the bridge for refurbishing.

    This "most bang for the buck" approach is the reason why so many of our projects are mediocre or worse.

  23. #123
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,979

    Default

    Regarding the cost, the province built the new bridge on the Yellowhead W.B. 6 years ago for $16 million.
    But, that was the province not the city.

  24. #124
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Can you convert to 07/08$ and labour/material costs?
    Onward and upward

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Keep in mind that the EPCOR Rossdale Plant will be decommissioned but not knocked down due to historical designation.
    I believe the east-side-attached Low Pressure Plant has the historic designation, not the High Pressure Plant. This EPCOR document indicates as much and also states "After decommissioning, EPCOR plans to open the west side of the Rossdale site (around the generation buildings) to public access, and examine non-industrial options for the former generation buildings, including adaptive re-use or conversion of the HP Plant into additional green-space." That tells me that the structure already has the possibility of being demolished. No mention here of roadway, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    And don't discount the possibility of having this include a possible LRT line. There is still a need for LRT from downtown to Millwoods and this new bridge could accommodate it (never say that something can't be done). Overall, I want to see any new bridge allow for multi-use - car, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and rail (LRT, HSR).
    I'm not saying it's impossible, I simply don't believe the inclusion of rail would ever happen given the grade variations and distance from the existing line. There's enough difficulty determining the route of the west-end LRT let alone pre-ordaining an additional south-side crossing.

  26. #126
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    However, the grade seems absurdly steep and the bridge length too long to be practicle. I thought I heard Mandel say something about the road being tiered (as opposed to a single slope?).
    This is what bothers me about the plan as it's been laid out thus far. Has there been any information about when a plan would be released?

    "Tiered"? So far as I'm aware, this term just refers to different levels of a bridge rather than dealing with slope issues. Not sure how they are going to handle the practical problem of avoiding this bridge becoming an absolute debacle in terms of winter driving. Seriously, something is missing with this idea. For $90 million, I really don't think we'll get much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    I think ideally that the Gateway Bridge connection would tunnel part way underground and exit across the existing prepared ramp. Further, I think the north-end exit would best be situated at the apparently soon-to-be-dismantled HP Plant (the EPCOR building with three stacks) and 104 Street and Rossdale rather than 105 Street. But tunnelling is uber expensive so this seems unlikely to occur.
    I'd agree. As soon as we start talking about tunneling anywhere, the price goes through the roof. Again, I really don't think the proviso with this plan is for any tunneling at all.

    Some questions:
    1 - Is anyone else a bit worried that we're trying to install something on the cheap?
    2 - Should there be a provision for LRT on this thing?
    3 - One Way traffic only? "Tiers" provide to two-way traffic?

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,096

    Default

    A lot of these alignments are plowing through the existing switch yard at the power plant.

    There has never been a final word if the switch yard can be removed from service.

  28. #128
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Granted I'm not very familiar with that specific area of town but why is it on all of these suggested routes do we have a bridge that's right next to another bridge going across the widest part of the river nearby?

    What exactly is the problem with linking it to 101 ST near the thinest part of the river? I'd have thought that would dramatically reduce the cost.

    Also there's mention of a burial site - anyone care to illustrate on a map where that is?

    As for potentially using the bridge for LRT I'm of the mind that if it makes sense it should happen. Obviously there are things to consider such as comparative costs, LRT route feasibility, appearance, and such but I wouldn't discount the option.

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    wow this bridge is gonna be a nightmare to design and build. the logistics of it are crazy.
    the main problems i see are:

    1. The slope is insane
    2. Its right beside another bridge
    3. since gateway is split into two roads its gonna be huge(unless what they are saying is just gateway one way and not including calgary trail. but thats silly cause there would have to be another way out of the downtown then.
    4. the size and length that it will have to be is definatly gonna make this more expensive than 90mill.

  30. #130
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    this thing will not be bank to bank....no way in heck...
    Onward and upward

  31. #131
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,416

    Default

    Whatever the case, I'm glad Mayor Mandel is suggesting this. At the very least, it will be a catalyst towards building the downtown bridge, much like the LRT to NAIT. Write down the goals first.

  32. #132
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    "uber" is sooooooo "kEwL".

    I want a new uber/kewl bridge linking DT to the SS as well. Long overdue in my books.

  33. #133
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    this thing will not be bank to bank....no way in heck...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  34. #134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    this thing will not be bank to bank....no way in heck...
    Exactly.

    And the south slope is not as steep as many believe. It would make sense to cut and cover a few hundred meters south of the bank and transition to the existing slope (as best as possible) towards the river bank, then utilize the existing approach grade that was constructed in the 60's.

    In addition, most bridges are built to a 90D angle in order to reduce the physical bridge structure one has to build. So the alignment that was shown on CTV is more than likely not too accurate.

    Or better yet, why don't we wait until we hear more about this bridge before making wild assumptions.

  35. #135
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Or better yet, why don't we wait until we hear more about this bridge before making wild assumptions.
    That's no fun. Until plans are made official, speculation is all we can offer.

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude
    "Tiered"? So far as I'm aware, this term just refers to different levels of a bridge rather than dealing with slope issues. Not sure how they are going to handle the practical problem of avoiding this bridge becoming an absolute debacle in terms of winter driving. Seriously, something is missing with this idea.
    Why is winter driving such an issue? If the slope is a problem re slipperyness, it is very simple technology to heat the bridge either electrically or with hot water heating under the road. Given the price of the bridge, this wouldn't be a big deal either to build or power. If you want to do this high tech - geothermal is the way to go:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...e_in_japan.php

    Proven local geothermal technology (going into houses as we speak), which uses our Province's drilling expertise, would do the trick.

    Looking forward to seeing more details when they are available - just speculating at the moment. I am excited at the prospect of a direct link from Gateway though - think of all the polution of cars trapped in stop start traffic in our river valley that will be eliminated.

  37. #137
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD

    And the south slope is not as steep as many believe. It would make sense to cut and cover a few hundred meters south of the bank and transition to the existing slope (as best as possible) towards the river bank, then utilize the existing approach grade that was constructed in the 60's.
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Nope, given the $$$, it is Dantzer's "folly" to "fruition"....
    requoted for emphasis. 90 mill, they will use what they already have.
    Onward and upward

  38. #138
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD

    And the south slope is not as steep as many believe. It would make sense to cut and cover a few hundred meters south of the bank and transition to the existing slope (as best as possible) towards the river bank, then utilize the existing approach grade that was constructed in the 60's.
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Nope, given the $$$, it is Dantzer's "folly" to "fruition"....
    requoted for emphasis. 90 mill, they will use what they already have.
    according to the province's website:

    "Under the Basic Capital Grant, each jurisdiction is eligible to receive an annual grant based on the $60 per capita and the previous year's official population. The Grant provides conditional cost-sharing grants, on a 75 percent Government/25 percent City basis, for capital-related projects which meet program eligibility criteria.

    "Projects such as new or upgraded roads and truck routes through cities, including grade separations (interchanges), and bus purchases are eligible for cost-sharing at 75 percent Government/25 percent City. In addition, projects that will enhance the safety of the provincial highway and truck routes are eligible under this program.

    "The funding level to each city is determined annually based on the total value of the city's eligible projects up to a maximum annual per capita allocation."


    i don't know if the recent infrastructure monies given to municipalities supplanted everything else or not, but if not a 90 million dollar commitment by the city would "buy" a 360 million dollar bridge...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #139
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    i don't know if the recent infrastructure monies given to municipalities supplanted everything else or not, but if not a 90 million dollar commitment by the city would "buy" a 360 million dollar bridge...
    If my arithmetic is correct, that gets us about 44 million a year, and I thought the city had already committed that for the next 10 years to pay off the mortgage on the 23 Ave interchange.

  40. #140
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    i don't know if the recent infrastructure monies given to municipalities supplanted everything else or not, but if not a 90 million dollar commitment by the city would "buy" a 360 million dollar bridge...
    If my arithmetic is correct, that gets us about 44 million a year, and I thought the city had already committed that for the next 10 years to pay off the mortgage on the 23 Ave interchange.
    you may well be correct dwells, unless the plan is to send it to edc for vetting and approval by which time 23rd ave. will be paid off - just joking bdavidson, i think - although by then the price will have trebled as well.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #141
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill



    As for possible roadway alignment, here are some considerations. First up is the graphic from the CTV news bit.



    .
    If you look carefully at the CTV graphic, it IS "Dantzer's" alignment.
    Onward and upward

  42. #142
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    so is this bridge just gonna be one way northbound? that would kinda suck cause we would probably have to even it back out after.

  43. #143
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Seeing that the start of Calgary Trail is close by the terminus of Gateway Blvd, it would make sense to have 2 bridges.

    Two questions though:
    - where does the southbound traffic come from? 106 St? Bellamy Hill?
    - what will the grade be like? If done wrong, it could be quite a climb.
    “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

  44. #144
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    HINT...

    CP is to leave Scona yards.

    End of line.
    Onward and upward

  45. #145
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    I always thought $90 million was a bit low for a bridge project of this scale in Edmonton, given how much construction costs are going and all that. As others have already said, could Mandel be just stating the city's share of the total cost of the bridge? Or was that just some little mistakein the CFRN news piece not unlike a typo in a newspaper?

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    HINT...

    CP is to leave Scona yards.

    End of line.
    Then this will mean no more of those trains blocking Whyte Avenue traffic!

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    HINT...

    CP is to leave Scona yards.

    End of line.
    If you're referring to the yard between 63 Avenue and Whyte, I believe you're incorrect. CP has specifically indicated they have no intention of leaving that area.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    If you look carefully at the CTV graphic, it IS "Dantzer's" alignment.
    Also incorrect. The CTV graphic shows the south-bank alignment well east of the existing dirt ramp which is approximately mid way between that and the south end of Walterdale.

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    HINT...

    CP is to leave Scona yards.

    End of line.
    If you're referring to the yard between 63 Avenue and Whyte, I believe you're incorrect. CP has specifically indicated they have no intention of leaving that area.
    The CEO of Epcor also said last year they weren't looking for more office space, and had no interest in building a new tower... fast forward a year...
    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    If you look carefully at the CTV graphic, it IS "Dantzer's" alignment.
    Also incorrect. The CTV graphic shows the south-bank alignment well east of the existing dirt ramp which is approximately mid way between that and the south end of Walterdale.
    and I'm sure that graphic is 100% accurate as well...

  48. #148
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    That would probably be why the word "approximate" was used in the CTV graphic... They just inserted a yellow rectangle as tehy probably only had minutes to come up with this!

    There is no way in hell they are going to NOT use that dirtpile. It's already there. There is only one real alignment, a need to "avoid" the 82nd interchange, and to make this a 2 way bridge. The best way is still cut and cover, come out near the QE pool, or right over the old site, and end up right beside the current north side of the Walterdale.

    Call me incorrect if you want Spill, and I may be, but I've heard it from several sources on a) the bridge alignment, and b) CP moving out. They don't need anything past Argyle when their new intermodal is built, and they will use existing resources to build the new bridge to keep $$$ more for the structure itself.
    Onward and upward

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Regarding CP saying they're not leaving Strathcona yards...they also said they wouldn't give up the High Level narry three years before they were ready to demolish it.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    ...

    Call me incorrect if you want Spill, and I may be, but I've heard it from several sources on a) the bridge alignment, and b) CP moving out. They don't need anything past Argyle when their new intermodal is built, and they will use existing resources to build the new bridge to keep $$$ more for the structure itself.
    I clearly stated that the CTV graphic did not represent the existing ramp, not that the ramp wouldn't be used.

    Earlier I also described in detail the location of the current intermodal yard to be abandoned by CP. Hint: not the Strathcona yard. I don't believe there have been any credible sources identifying the Strathcona yard as about to be abandoned. That CP might change their mind on that item is of course a (welcome) possibility but highly unlikely to occur in the first part of the new year in conjunction with the first announcement of the bridge details.

  51. #151
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    St Albert, Alberta
    Posts
    192

    Default

    there has gotta be a way to build this bridge as simple as possible. now dont get me wrong im all for glitz and glamour but lets focus on letting the city/river valley view more than spending countless millions on "how it looks" when in reality we should be focusing on the car in FRONT of us not about what we're driving on.

    that aside. i still say edmonton is in the stone age for a city thats booming. it should never take this long to have projects done. i realise we are a prosperous province but with the demands that we have and all the things we want, its gonna send us back into the red. so either we face the reality and dip into the pocket a bit more or just deal with what we got.

    either way none of us will ever be happy about the situation. but the world is an everchanging place where we demand progress, and progress costs.

    oh well, this can probably mean nothing to most people but its my 2 cents.

  52. #152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topher
    that aside. i still say edmonton is in the stone age for a city thats booming. it should never take this long to have projects done.
    Agreed, but it looks like Council is finally waking up to this fact. The past few years and hopefully the next few years have and will bring about city-altering improvemnts.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  53. #153

    Default

    Related comment from an article on the QE Pool recommendation. The pool location consideration suggests to me the intention that the ends of both 103 and 104 streets would be connected to the bridge.


    New plan proposed for QE pool

    Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: 1:08 pm Thursday, January 3, 2008

    EDMONTON - The Queen Elizabeth Outdoor Pool should be replaced with a new outdoor pool next to the Kinsmen Sports Centre, city staff are recommending.

    A new report proposes giving up plans to redevelop the existing pool, which was built in 1922 and closed in 2004 due to a major crack in the pool tank. The current site on the riverbank is a problem because of erosion of the slope, and, potentially, construction of a new bridge near the site, connecting Gateway Boulevard to downtown, the report said.

    The slope-erosion problems were key factors in the high bids the city received when it tendered a QE pool reconstruction project in 2006, according to the report. Bids came in at $7.6 million, well over the $4.1 million the city had approved. In 2007 the city retendered the project, and bids were even higher, at $8.1 million.

    So instead, city administrators say, a new outdoor pool should be built next to the Kinsmen centre, which houses an indoor Olympic-size pool.

    The president of the Friends of Queen Elizabeth Pool Society, John Stobbe, is happy with the new plan.

    "This actually could be a very, very exciting opportunity," Stobbe said.

    He points out that the Kinsmen centre is quite near the old pool, and that the new pool could still be called the QE pool. The Kinsmen site is bigger than the current site, he said, so that could mean the new pool could be bigger.

    The group has raised $320,000 through government grants plus $80,000 in commitments from other organizations. Stobbe said that money would be dedicated to a new pool at the Kinsmen site.

    The city report says the Kinsmen Club has given preliminary support to investigating the feasibility of adding a pool to its centre, stating: "The Kinsmen Club expressed tentative interest in considering some form of partnership involvement in the project."

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill
    Related comment from an article on the QE Pool recommendation. The pool location consideration suggests to me the intention that the ends of both 103 and 104 streets would be connected to the bridge.
    Or it could just mean that access to the current pool site would be lost if QE Park road were closed or re-aligned because of the new bridge.

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    Or it could just mean that access to the current pool site would be lost if QE Park road were closed or re-aligned because of the new bridge.
    We're not thinking much differently. I'm suggesting that such a likelihood is greater if the new road alignment also comes directly off of the end of 104 Street, due to it being that much closer than 103 Street.

  56. #156

    Default

    It just dawned on me that Mandel's mention of "tiering" would likely have to do with different alignments for north- and south-bound lanes on the south bank. Duh.

  57. #157
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Onward and upward

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ummm so is this proposed 2 way traffic? its gonna be insane trying to reroute traffic to get a southbound lane there. but in all seriously i cant see this project even start any sooner than 5 years from now.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW
    ummm so is this proposed 2 way traffic? its gonna be insane trying to reroute traffic to get a southbound lane there. but in all seriously i cant see this project even start any sooner than 5 years from now.
    I don't see what's so insane about it... 5th street bridge used to have two traffic before..This project could be in the ground by spring 09 if I was betting man.

  60. #160
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Link to Susan Ruttan's Edmonton Journal blog

    I was baffled on Christmas week to hear a couple of news reports that said Mayor Mandel wants a big new bridge across the North Saskatchewan taking off from Gateway Boulevard. What was he talking about, a second High Level Bridge? How would such a gargantuan project fit with the mayor's election pledge to promote the river valley as a fabulous natural area?

    Finally this week I cornered His Worship and asked him what the deal was. Had he changed his earlier statement to me that the plan was to twin the existing Walterdale Bridge -- a relatively humble little bridge that takes traffic heading north from Gateway Boulevard and 109th Street?

    Well, it appears Mandel is pondering some combo of the two. Twinning of the Walterdale would be the main thing, he said, but the road leading down from Gateway to that bridge would be straightened out, and the bridge perhaps angled slightly to the east.

    Those of you who have driven downtown from Gateway across the Walterdale know that to get from the boulevard to the bridge involves a jog to the east on Saskatchewan Drive, then a sharp left-hand turn onto a winding little road down to the bridge. The rough sketch the mayor made for me suggests a more direct road from Gateway down the hill to the bridge -- but no monster bridge taking off from the top of the cliff. Thank goodness for that.
    I'd like to see his plan for straightening out the road from Gateway to the Walterdale Bridge, considering that (as most C2E vets know) I've posted my own ideas for doing that.
    “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

  61. #161
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,259

    Default

    my 1st attempt at a bridge for that area...












    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  62. #162
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,469

    Default

    Link to Susan Ruttan's Edmonton Journal blog

    I was baffled on Christmas week to hear a couple of news reports that said Mayor Mandel wants a big new bridge across the North Saskatchewan taking off from Gateway Boulevard.
    ...
    The rough sketch the mayor made for me suggests a more direct road from Gateway down the hill to the bridge -- but no monster bridge taking off from the top of the cliff. Thank goodness for that.
    it may not just be christmas week that has susan baffled...

    no "monster" bridge going top of bank to top of bank (cliff???) like the high level bridge or the northeast train bridge or the twin highway 16 spans...

    no light sparkled cable stays or suspension ropes or towers that would be photographed and recognized world wide, just put the roadway and the traffic down in the river valley instead of above it...

    no "monster" large enough for a dedicated transit lane or two or high enough to allow pedestrians and bikes to cross the river valley and avoid a climb back up that "cliff" on the other side...

    i guess edmontonians will just have to lower their expectations yet again, after all, half a bridge crossing is better than none.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  63. #163
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Between Susan Ruttan writings and Tony Caterina spewings we are definately heading for "lowered expectations". Mediocrity is in vogue again (or still) in Edmonton.

  64. #164
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    man i had such high hopes for this thing. but i trust in Mandel to make it work. it better be pretty though, or else!

  65. #165
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    435

    Default

    I'm REALLY hoping this proposed bridge ends up being something that would really add to our skyline...

    Maybe something like the Bunker Hill Bridge in Boston, but less gargantuan...



    Wishful thinking on my part, sorry

  66. #166
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egranado
    I'm REALLY hoping this proposed bridge ends up being something that would really add to our skyline...

    Maybe something like the Bunker Hill Bridge in Boston, but less gargantuan...



    Wishful thinking on my part, sorry
    things done right sure are pretty aren't they...

    10 lanes wide and still elegant (although we could probably do without the cantilevered outside two). nine foot plus deep box beams - how about using something like that with windows and skylights to a centre median to provide covered access from top of bank to top of bank year round for pedestrians and cylcists?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    things done right sure are pretty aren't they...

    10 lanes wide and still elegant (although we could probably do without the cantilevered outside two). nine foot plus deep box beams - how about using something like that with windows and skylights to a centre median to provide covered access from top of bank to top of bank year round for pedestrians and cylcists?
    What would your preferred alignment be Ken?

  68. #168
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I'd like to see a suspension arch bridge. Look up the Gateshead Millennial Bridge At Newcastle, england. Like that, only not lifting, and four traffic lanes plus pedestrian.

  69. #169

    Default

    So evidently as per the Gateway Widening thread/article/study, this bridge is now 10 years or more out.

    From http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...2-7968266b457d

    (Councillor) Anderson said the Walterdale won't be replaced for 10 years or more, but it is necessary to begin talking about it now. The plan released Thursday is just a form of early information-gathering about a new bridge, he said.

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle
    (Councillor) Anderson said the Walterdale won't be replaced for 10 years or more, but it is necessary to begin talking about it now. The plan released Thursday is just a form of early information-gathering about a new bridge, he said.
    Sooner or later someone is going to build a new downtown south of the river if access is not improved - I guess straightning down from Gateway will help though. But a big bridge can be the most beautiful, long lasting statement, a thing to inspire citizens and be proud of. Functional too. Odd to me that politicians wouldn't want that as a legacy, but never mind, for a future leader I guess...

  71. #171
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,664

    Default

    Tunnel proposal for Sask. Drive gains traction
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...2a3ea5&k=82814

    Now there is a chance for a parkade for Old Strathcona. I remember reading I think on this forum a long while ago about the tunnel starting at about 78th Avenue so it goes right under Whyte Avenue and then when you pop out after Sask. Dr you would get a whole view of Edmonton's downtown. Of course this would only work if money was no object. But it would remove another couple of lights on Gateway going north, it would lessen the traffic going east and west as the lights could be timed differently due to less northbound traffic and would probably increase the value of the real estate north of Whyte. Any ideas how much would that cost since LRT is $100M per KM for tunnelling. Would that be about 800 M to about 1.2 km or so.

  72. #172
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Personally, I'd rather see a monster bridge. One that can be considered an engineering marvel and architecutural icon. 100 years from now, I want Edmontonians to think that we had the guts to build something really bold.

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
    Personally, I'd rather see a monster bridge. One that can be considered an engineering marvel and architecutural icon. 100 years from now, I want Edmontonians to think that we had the guts to build something really bold.
    Like the Montreal Olympic Stadium that cost nearly $1 billion to build and the concrete is crumbling as we just finished paying for it 30 years later…
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booster
    Tunnel proposal for Sask. Drive gains traction
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...2a3ea5&k=82814

    Now there is a chance for a parkade for Old Strathcona. I remember reading I think on this forum a long while ago about the tunnel starting at about 78th Avenue so it goes right under Whyte Avenue and then when you pop out after Sask. Dr you would get a whole view of Edmonton's downtown. Of course this would only work if money was no object. But it would remove another couple of lights on Gateway going north, it would lessen the traffic going east and west as the lights could be timed differently due to less northbound traffic and would probably increase the value of the real estate north of Whyte. Any ideas how much would that cost since LRT is $100M per KM for tunnelling. Would that be about 800 M to about 1.2 km or so.
    The costs are highly dependent on what is underground. The geology, hydrology and subsoil conditions. If there is major utilities under Whyte Ave., especially sewer and water lines that can increase the costs dramatically.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  75. #175
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Like the Montreal Olympic Stadium that cost nearly $1 billion to build and the concrete is crumbling as we just finished paying for it 30 years later…
    Slightly different. If we get the mob involved in any bridge construction, make sure they charge high and provide low, and all together screw up project management...then maybe we can compare the two
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Like the Montreal Olympic Stadium that cost nearly $1 billion to build and the concrete is crumbling as we just finished paying for it 30 years later…
    Slightly different. If we get the mob involved in any bridge construction, make sure they charge high and provide low, and all together screw up project management...then maybe we can compare the two ;)
    Yeah, they had the system rigged so well that they counted every concrete truck several times and paid for enough waterery concrete to build three stadiums. Some trucks went in the front gate and around out the back gate so often that the concrete hardened solid inside the drum. :lol:
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #177
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
    Personally, I'd rather see a monster bridge. One that can be considered an engineering marvel and architecutural icon. 100 years from now, I want Edmontonians to think that we had the guts to build something really bold.
    And when was the last time that you looked at the High Level and marvelled at the guts it took to build something so bold? It's only been 95 years - so not quite 100 - but it's close.

    People have very little appreciation of history. And 100 years from now they'll still have very little appreciation of history.

    Your architetutal icon of a bridge will be called beautiful by those that love it, and ugly and old by those that don't. And everyone else - the vast, vast majority of people - will just drive over it without giving it a second thought.

    At least a white elephant stadium gets used by people. A bridge is just a road.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    Your architetutal icon of a bridge will be called beautiful by those that love it, and ugly and old by those that don't. And everyone else - the vast, vast majority of people - will just drive over it without giving it a second thought.
    I never heard anyone call the Sydney Harbor bridge, or Golden Gate bridge, ugly. But, I do think, the vast majority of people give them a second thought when they cross them, they are awe inspiring, people care more about architecture than you seem suggest, even if most of us have no talent for it. We don't have to settle for another mediocre crossing, I actually think most Edmontonians would go for a iconic bridge, most people understand the functional need as well (a much easier sell than an Art Gallery IMO).

  79. #179
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Building a monumental bridge connecting the top of each side of the river valley vs. a much shorter one down in the valley is going to be incredibly expensive. Probably looking at over a billion to build something that long and high. It would be a huge bridge.

    It just seems like we'd be building it just for the sake of building it, when something one tenth as expensive would do.

  80. #180
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    I never heard anyone call the Sydney Harbor bridge, or Golden Gate bridge, ugly. But, I do think, the vast majority of people give them a second thought when they cross them, they are awe inspiring, people care more about architecture than you seem suggest, even if most of us have no talent for it. We don't have to settle for another mediocre crossing, I actually think most Edmontonians would go for a iconic bridge, most people understand the functional need as well (a much easier sell than an Art Gallery IMO).
    We have one iconic bridge. What benefit does a second one bring? And who's to say that it will be appreciated any more than the High Level is.

    If we're so desperate for an icon, it would be much, much easier and cheaper to make the High Level into one. Waterfall, streetcar, night lighting, bungee jumping, ad campaign, racing stripes, whatever. Make it a focal point, and then people will care.

    Or build a snazzy little replacement for the Walterdale that connects to the rivervalley parks and a revitalised Rossdale, and that the community will actually be able to use for something more than just driving across.

    Another giant elevated road, though? What did you do with your last one?

  81. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
    Personally, I'd rather see a monster bridge. One that can be considered an engineering marvel and architecutural icon. 100 years from now, I want Edmontonians to think that we had the guts to build something really bold.
    Like the Montreal Olympic Stadium that cost nearly $1 billion to build and the concrete is crumbling as we just finished paying for it 30 years later…
    or the high level bridge, which cost a lot of money back then, but still stands the test of time!

    Must you always find the worst example to further your lame agenda?

  82. #182
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,073

    Default

    I guess I want to see whatever will make the trip across the river into downtown the easiest and safest and least time consuming possible. Whatever solution is put forward, as long as it meets that criteria and meets the guidelines set forth by the city (design, capacity, cost), then I will be a happy Edmontonian.

  83. #183

    Default

    I would love to have Santiago Calatrava design the bridge.


    http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm

  84. #184
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,416

    Default

    Ideally, I'd like to see a tunnel run from about about 76-78 Avenue to Saskatchewan Drive. Make it two way (along with the new bridge), with the southbound lane connecting up with Calgary Trail South at about 71 Avenue (I believe there's an old plan from the sixties with respect to the alignment). None of the traffic would interfere with Whyte Avenue or Old Strathcona, and Whyte Avenue would be more free-flow. If the cost is affordable, then this option should be seriously considered.

    Consideration could also be made for the LRT.

  85. #185

    Default Walterdale Bridge Replacement | Proposed/Discussion

    A major expressway through Old Strathona? You're joking, right?

    Paula Simons
    The Edmonton Journal



    Saturday, February 09, 2008


    Over the years, I've seen a lot of cockamamie ideas emanate from City Hall. But this may well be the daftest one ever. City council's transportation and public works committee is giving serious consideration to turning Gateway Boulevard, as it runs through Old Strathcona, into a major expressway and truck route. The proposal is to widen the road, then build an underpass where the boulevard reaches scenic Saskatchewan Drive. A large trench would gradually lower traffic so northbound vehicles could access Queen Elizabeth Park Road without having to make a sharp left hand turn.

    The underpass proposal is part of plans to replace the aging Walterdale Bridge with a much wider two-way span. The goal is to speed the flow of cars into the downtown, accommodate more truck traffic and improve the view of the downtown.


    The notion would be laughable, if the stakes weren't so high. Old Strathcona is Edmonton's most economically and culturally vibrant neighbourhood, a tourist draw, a nationally recognized heritage district. Old Strathcona is our single best example of urban renewal. We've laboured to make it great, we've invested millions in architectural preservation and cultural infrastructure. We'd be insane to plow a trench and truck route through the middle of this city's signature neighbourhood.

    We've had a lot of enthusiastic letters to the paper this week from people thrilled with the idea of a tunnel that would take cars underground and make it easier for pedestrians to cross Gateway Blvd. But that's NOT what's being proposed here. The plan is to start sloping the road at 84th or 85th Avenue, to gradually lower the road deck by about six metres. This wouldn't be a covered tunnel people could walk across, more like a moat you'd need to cross via a pedestrian overpass.
    Rest of the story here: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...5-b2ea28150d23

  86. #186

    Default

    A later quote from later in the article...

    In fairness, the idea of running a six-metre deep open-air trench through the heart of Old Strathcona is still in the most preliminary blue-sky stages.
    Excuse me? You know, the heart of old strathcona? It's a little to the West? Or maybe I'm confused. The heart is the old ROW??? Wow, where have I been

    And whats the big problem? Theres already a railline there, or there was. They act like this is going to kill Old strathcona and whyte ave. I doubt this has much impact on either... Good lord Paula

  87. #187
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    656

    Default Small Minds, No Vision

    We have the money, we can build a tunnel - such as what was done with Montreal's Decarie Expressway under a historic church, Montreal's Ville Marie Expressway through downtown, Vancouver's Trans-Canada through the exibition grounds ....

  88. #188

    Default

    As someone posted on another forum, don't forget about the rail ROW that exists....

  89. #189
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Let me make this really simple.

    There WILL BE a freer flowing route to downtown from the south.

    You have 2 options - work on the Gateway alignment, or Mill Creek Ravine.

    Chose wisely.

    End of line.
    Onward and upward

  90. #190
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    with this as with any other proposal (such as the strathearn, glenora, new arena, late-night ETS, HSR) there are three camps. one camp of optimists who believe that with input and proper lobbying they can influence the project for the better. one camp who is quiet in a "i don't care--whatever will be will be" kind of way, and one camp of eternal pessimists who out of fear of getting something they don't like start loudly complaining. the camp of optimists sees the project as something with potential. the pessimists get a picture of the worst case scenario in their heads and virtually no amount of convincing will make them alter that picture.

    just an observation.

  91. #191
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,259

    Default

    Paula brings up good points, but IMO is way off on this one...way off
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  92. #192
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,305

    Default

    Repost from another thread:


    The trench would destroy the pretty and historic End of Steel park, eliminating one of Old Strathcona's only green spaces.
    End of Steel Park is just a lawn with an old CP Rail caboose at the end, hardly what I'd call a great park. Not when it's on the edge of an even better park: the river valley. Not when the park could easily be moved nearby.

    It would slice the Old Strathcona arts district in half, cutting off the Yardbird Suite and Catalyst Theatre from the Cosmopolitan Music Society, the Arts Barns, the Walterdale Theatre and the Varscona.
    Right, like it's not already like that.

    The impact on the Fringe Festival, on the Old Strathcona Farmers Market, on Old Strathcona's residential and commercial pulse, would be dire.
    And I can't stress this enough until people in this city get it hammered into their heads - amber pedestrian signals!

    Is it because the so-called "hairpin turn" from Saskatchewan Drive onto Queen Elizabeth Park Road is a safety hazard?

    Nope. Turns out that intersection is actually quite safe.

    It doesn't even make the list of the city's 100 most accident-prone intersections -- some years, it ranks as low as 198th. Over the last 10 years, there have been only 170 collisions on that site, about 17 a year. By contrast, the city's most dangerous intersection at Gateway Blvd. and 23rd Ave. has an average of about 90 collisions a year. The tricky traffic circle at 142nd St. and 107th Ave. sees about 75 collisions a year, while the troublesome West Edmonton Mall intersection of 170th St. and 87th Ave. has about 64 crashes a year.
    And those 17 accidents a year happen - let me guess - on the few days a year the road is icy and untreated? Those are the times when I and most people I know nearly wipe out when trying to negotiate that turn. Oh, and those numbers might be skewered because of the closure of Walterdale Bridge traffic to construction a couple of years ago.

    Is it to improve the view? What a joke. The view from the top of Queen Elizabeth Park Road is already one of the most dramatic and beautiful vistas in the city. So, for that matter, is the approach through scenic and historic Old Strathcona, past End of Steel Park. How could putting cars through a trench and a tunnel make it any lovelier? Is the goal to keep tourists from getting lost on their way downtown? A few more strategically placed signs might be cheaper.
    It's all about first impressions, Paula. You can put up all the traffic signs you want, but the first impression we're providing to our visitors and commuters with the hairpin is we're a city with a backward-arse mentality and we don't want give people easy access into our downtown.

    As our population booms, all our bridges are being pushed to their limits. But no single "super-bridge" can solve our river-crossing woes. A better solution might be to divvy up commuters amongst all the bridges -- and to try to cut down on car traffic by improving LRT and bus service.
    And that's the kind of "hyuk hyuk good enough for lil' ol' E-town" mentality that's kept the city stuck in neutral for many years.

    Nobody will argue against better ETS service though.
    “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

  93. #193
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    There's no reason that this Gateway 'tunnel' needs to be a ravine. It could be tunneled and or cut and covered.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  94. #194
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    The city I lived in in Germany had a tunnel all the way through its city core, and the core itself was a pedestrian only zone. I say tunnel, or leave it the way it is.
    Mike

  95. #195

    Default

    Her argument is way off. She hasn't looked at a map. This amounts to putting a trench through the middle of the parking lot.

    The impact of this trench on "walkability" is Zero.

    I think that her argument is so far off that it could possibly indicate some other motivation for being against this project.

    End of Steel park is hardly well used, which is a shame, and a pedestrian overpass could actually bring people into the park, which can easily be re-formed in the same spot.
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  96. #196
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I highly doubt that there is a goal of increasing truck traffic. this will never be a truck route. I'm ok with allowing the occasional moving van or semiload of construction materials to avoid low old bridges and tight corners. I don't think that it's always beneficial to force trucks to take all 3 lanes to get around a corner.


    Gateway is already about as big of a barrier as it ever will be. I suspect that if this happens it will be done right and will be better than before.

  97. #197
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,416

    Default

    Paula, I think having the road tunneled underneath from Whyte Avenue to the river valley will reduce a lot of the traffic that goes through Old Strathcona. Done properly, we could have a free-flow Gateway/Calgary Trail road, and it would make Strathcona more pedestrian friendly.

  98. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    There's no reason that this Gateway 'tunnel' needs to be a ravine. It could be tunneled and or cut and covered.
    I hope that happens - a tunnel or cut and cover. While I see the desperate need for better downtown access (ideally an expressway IMO), I don't think it makes sense to cheap out on this one - a trench "could" be quite hideous, depending of course on what ends up being proposed.

  99. #199

    Default

    Shouldn't be a "ravine" but cut and cover or a tunnel would be ideal.

    As for the traffic/pedestrian situation it's already crazy from 82nd to 84th Ave this might actually make it more pedestrian friendly and bring both sides of Gateway together with a better flow of foot traffic.

  100. #200
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    i think everyone is forgetting the main advantage to the tunnel.

    can you imagine taking a taxi and being able to use the line:
    "Take the tunnel"
    CLASSIC! that in itself makes it worthwhile for me

Page 2 of 35 FirstFirst 12345612 ... 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
  •