Page 3 of 33 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 3278

Thread: Walterdale Bridge Replacement | U/C

  1. #201
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Any chance it can get tunneled a few blocks sooner?

  2. #202
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
    Any chance it can get tunneled a few blocks sooner?
    I think many details would be dependant on what CP decides to do with it's line in that region.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  3. #203

    Default

    ^ not only that, but the AB GOV as well, as they own the ROW for HSR North of the CP yard don't they?

  4. #204
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    122

    Default

    I generally enjoy Paula's insights, however on this one I think she missed the train, by about 20 years. End of steel park is a caboose on a patch of lawn that marks where the CP rail yards ended at the top of the river valley. CP pulled out of the downton core years ago, rmember the debate around the future of the High Level Bridge? Move forward and the City has a planning process for Strathcona Junction from Argyll Road to Old Strathcona.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/Gen...Newsletter.pdf

    With the new Walterdale Bridge Edmonton stands to finally have a entry from the airport to downtown that does not look like the hinterlands. Now is the time for options to be examined. Here are a couple of ideas.

    1: NB descent starts at approx 86 ave thereby minimizizing cost. SB tunnel would emerge at 86 ave.Drawbacks short possibly steeper grade might be a problem in winter. Also lost opportunity to connect east and west Strathcona areas.

    2: NB tunnel portal immediately south of 82 ave with an off ramp to 82 ave. Tunnel continues to emerge in river valley. SB Tunnel emerges south of 82 ave with an on ramp form 82 ave. Eliminates cross city traffic from Old Strathcona and allows full intergration to be developed east and west of 103 st. By using cut and cover the extra costs can be controlled. Also the trees along the centre median along 104 st can be saved. For commuters the convience of no light at Whyte Ave would mean a quicker commute.

    As others have pointed out many cities have used tunnels to solve traffic problems. The extra costs of tunnelling now can bring tremendous rewards to the city for years to come. A larger area for the Fringe and other festivals with out the current raceways along both sides. Encourage pedestrian oriented european style developments as the area redevelops. As well less time having cars idle means a reduction in green house gases.

    Finally I am not propssing a freeway, just a stetch with no lights from about 80 ave to 97 ave perhaps.
    Edmonton - Vancouver - Ottawa

  5. #205
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    I don't think Gateway Blvd needs to be widened at all. However, they should remove street parking along it and we still need to get rid of that hairpin with the tunnel-under plan.
    “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

  6. #206

    Default

    we do need to definitely keep "end of steel" park. it is not about moving forward without it, it is about moving it over a little bit.

    it is a commemorative park. the point of having a commemorative park is that it represents how things used to be, not what has happened since then.
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  7. #207
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default Re: A major expressway through Old Strathona? You're joking,

    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.
    But it's a good idea regardless - a win-win situation that would both improve traffic flow between the south side and downtown and keep that through traffic out of Old Strathcona.

  8. #208
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,267

    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.
    The first and most preferred option will be cut and cover as it is much cheaper, the second would be tunneling.

  9. #209
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    The only thing with cut & cover is all the moaning about the construction killing street life on Whyte Ave. After all, some people blame the cut & cover construction of the LRT under Jasper Ave for killing downtown street life back in the 70s.
    “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

  10. #210
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    The only thing with cut & cover is all the moaning about the construction killing street life on Whyte Ave. After all, some people blame the cut & cover construction of the LRT under Jasper Ave for killing downtown street life back in the 70s.
    three pretty major differerences come to mind:

    1. a construction schedule that would likely be only 25% as long.

    2. what will get built "at grade" is likely to be much better for strathcona than much of the "street improvements" that jasper avenue was left saddled with.

    3. the overall economic climate in general and the health of strathcona/whyte avenue in particular is much stronger than it was when jasper avenue was "decommissioned".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #211
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    This city has always caved against these sorts of things. I can't understand why people are so scared of making our roads function better. Does she not realize that a depressed roadway will actually tighten the community. The cars will be travelling about 10 feet below the sidewalks, and I'm sure that there will be ways of getting from one side to the other (pedestrian bridges) which is sure a hell of a lot safer than trying to cross THROUGH traffic. The reason that there hasn't been a lot of accidents at the hairpin is because of the SLOW speed that everyone is forced to do because of it. Thank God she isn't a roadway planner, but as a journalist she really needs to be more accurate & think about what she writes.

  12. #212
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrecker
    This city has always caved against these sorts of things. I can't understand why people are so scared of making our roads function better. Does she not realize that a depressed roadway will actually tighten the community. The cars will be travelling about 10 feet below the sidewalks, and I'm sure that there will be ways of getting from one side to the other (pedestrian bridges) which is sure a hell of a lot safer than trying to cross THROUGH traffic. The reason that there hasn't been a lot of accidents at the hairpin is because of the SLOW speed that everyone is forced to do because of it. Thank God she isn't a roadway planner, but as a journalist she really needs to be more accurate & think about what she writes.
    "Shrill" is the word that comes to my mind after I read her column. A compromise has to be found to allow adequate access to downtown and the interests of Old Strathcona and I think this is it accept the trench should be started south of Whyte in order to eliminate as many bottle knecks and dangerous interactions as possible.

  13. #213

    Default

    Trenching from 80th ave . and under Whyte is a good idea but the cost could be very high. Whyte ave is an old & major arterial that probably has major sewer, water, electrical, gas, telephone and other utilities running underneath. Moving these utilities could be extremely costly.

    We could offset some costs by selling land that would surround a pedestrian plaza between 102nd and 103 streets but alot of careful study and planning is needed to determine the costs and the future development potential of the area.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #214
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Trenching from 80th ave . and under Whyte is a good idea but the cost could be very high. Whyte ave is an old & major arterial that probably has major sewer, water, electrical, gas, telephone and other utilities running underneath. Moving these utilities could be extremely costly.

    We could offset some costs by selling land that would surround a pedestrian plaza between 102nd and 103 streets but alot of careful study and planning is needed to determine the costs and the future development potential of the area.
    Retail over the top of Gateway along Whyte would bridge the gap and make it very pedestrian friendly.

  15. #215

    Default

    Retail over the top of Gateway along Whyte would bridge the gap and make it very pedestrian friendly.
    this indeed would be very ped friendly, and very cool. Now if they could tunnel the rest to the river valley (see: $$$) it would really connect the east and west side of the tracks.

    Now, what I've thought before would that this new bridge should some how incorporate a future extension to include the possibility of HSR (lets not discuss HSR possibility here though) . So maybe if we really want to be visionary, lets start thinking about making the tunnel easily expandable to have a HSR line. It could go right into Rossdale, and maybe further into downtown. I'm sure money or something else would get in the way, but it would be cool way to really connect both sides of Ol' Strathcona together, and into downtown

  16. #216
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    thinking shorter term then HSR, LRT line to, eventually, Millwoods

    so, if they also decide to tunnel on the north bank, we can have the following LRT line:

    Millwoods Towne Centre--91/ 99 street to Gateway (possibly along Argyle) to stop at Whyte avenue, cross the river along the new tunnel and bridge tunnel into the North bank of the river at around 105 street to connect with either Bay station and/or Corona and continue on underground to MacEwan and then head north/ west along 104/ 107 ave to maybe even St. Albert. We already have a NE-SW line happening. This one would be SE-NW line with west line and north line emerging as well.

    anyhow, while the lines and alignments are TBA, the approach and the bridge needs to be planned right from the start.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Now, what I've thought before would that this new bridge should some how incorporate a future extension to include the possibility of HSR (lets not discuss HSR possibility here though) . So maybe if we really want to be visionary, lets start thinking about making the tunnel easily expandable to have a HSR line. It could go right into Rossdale, and maybe further into downtown. I'm sure money or something else would get in the way, but it would be cool way to really connect both sides of Ol' Strathcona together, and into downtown
    Or an LRT line (wouldn't it be great to have a station at Strathcona if somehow possible?) - such redundancy seems logical, depending on the costs I guess.

    Just saw you beat me too it Grish!

  18. #218
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  19. #219
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    A Rossdale LRT station would be a great meeting place. Imagine having a transport hub there that would act as a crossroads between HSR, LRT, ETS, and River Taxi.

  20. #220

    Default

    I dare Paula to read this thread!

  21. #221
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i think you can just ask her. while the opinion she expressed was questionable, she does not strike me as an unreasonable person. if alerted to this thread and opinions expressed here, perhaps she may want to write a column on the possibilities of the gateway improvements .

  22. #222

    Default

    someone who crafty with words should pen her an email.

  23. #223
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    I don't pretend to know anything about trains. But the one thing I do know is that significant elevation changes are not generally a good thing. So an LRT line (or even worse, an HSR line) that drops all the way into the valley to Rossdale and then pops back up? Probably not a good plan?

  24. #224

    Default

    I believe that the LRT could do a 6% grade... as that what it does to get out of university station to Health Sciences. On the northside of the valley, you wouldn't need to go back up that quickly, as you would be tunneling under downtown... (at least in my dream world).. and if your sloping this tunnel from prior to whyte ave on the southside, you should be able to do it without exceeding 6% grade?

  25. #225
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I believe that the LRT could do a 6% grade... as that what it does to get out of university station to Health Sciences. On the northside of the valley, you wouldn't need to go back up that quickly, as you would be tunneling under downtown... (at least in my dream world).. and if your sloping this tunnel from prior to whyte ave on the southside, you should be able to do it without exceeding 6% grade?
    i could be wrong but i thing 6% was the "old" limit based on the original spec's for edmonton's cars and that those had to upgraded (brakes in particular) for the 8% grade in the tunnel coming up to/down from the university...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #226
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    also the stop (if there was one in Rossdale) need not be at grade. it can stay on the bridge and an elevated track for a bit. of course we are talking about things that aren't there in which case $$ is not an issue

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I believe that the LRT could do a 6% grade... as that what it does to get out of university station to Health Sciences. On the northside of the valley, you wouldn't need to go back up that quickly, as you would be tunneling under downtown... (at least in my dream world).. and if your sloping this tunnel from prior to whyte ave on the southside, you should be able to do it without exceeding 6% grade?
    i could be wrong but i thing 6% was the "old" limit based on the original spec's for edmonton's cars and that those had to upgraded (brakes in particular) for the 8% grade in the tunnel coming up to/down from the university...
    I thought the old limit was 4% and with upgrades is 6%

  28. #228
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I believe that the LRT could do a 6% grade... as that what it does to get out of university station to Health Sciences. On the northside of the valley, you wouldn't need to go back up that quickly, as you would be tunneling under downtown... (at least in my dream world).. and if your sloping this tunnel from prior to whyte ave on the southside, you should be able to do it without exceeding 6% grade?
    i could be wrong but i thing 6% was the "old" limit based on the original spec's for edmonton's cars and that those had to upgraded (brakes in particular) for the 8% grade in the tunnel coming up to/down from the university...
    I thought the old limit was 4% and with upgrades is 6%
    i freely admitted i could be wrong... it does happen on occasion. very rare occasions mind you...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  29. #229
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    276

    Default

    According to this document:
    http://www.stantec.com/StantecCom/CmtDocs/38.PDF
    The old limit was 4%; the new limit 6%

  30. #230
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled
    I don't pretend to know anything about trains. But the one thing I do know is that significant elevation changes are not generally a good thing. So an LRT line (or even worse, an HSR line) that drops all the way into the valley to Rossdale and then pops back up? Probably not a good plan?
    That could maybe attract even more riders. Just throw in a triple loop, and voila, Mindbender II.

  31. #231
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    Realistically, a Millwoods LRT would more likely originate from Churchill station, run underground until it tunnels out under the Hotel MacDonald, across the Low Level Bridge then up Connors Hill Rd to Bonnie Doon. But that's a different topic altogether.
    “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

  32. #232
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carbon-14
    According to this document:
    http://www.stantec.com/StantecCom/CmtDocs/38.PDF
    The old limit was 4%; the new limit 6%
    That is right, and for the 6% grade from University to Health Sciences, they had to retrofit the centre bogeys of each car, increasing the braking power.
    Yay, summertime!

  33. #233
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    When people propose a covered tunnel for Gateway I have visions of the Rathole.

    On a more reasonable facet, though, how would traffic from Old Strathcona access a tunnel that runs from 78 Ave, below Whyte Avenue, to the riverbank?

  34. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    ...
    On a more reasonable facet, though, how would traffic from Old Strathcona access a tunnel that runs from 78 Ave, below Whyte Avenue, to the riverbank?
    There are obviously numerous alternative solutions but, should a tunnel be used, access from Strathcona (Whyte and north) could be from the hairpin turn with a merge on the hill rather than having to enter the tunnel at all.

    It will be fascinating to see what configuration options end up being considered.

  35. #235
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    The traffic situation on gateway and 82 ave is problematic at best. On saturdays when the farmers market is open I avoid driving gateway because the traffic tie up is horrible. I think if either a trench is dug down or a tunnel is built to bring traffic to the river valley avoiding whyte ave it would actually improve the whyte area.

    Now I'd have to read the thread again but to see if this idea was propossed but how bout this.
    Somewhere just south of the new strathcona gateway arch the roadway should be redirected to the east (to the right) of the arch. This new direction for gateway would then start to slope downwards towards the rivervalley. At approximate 80 or 81 Ave the roadway would be deep enough already to start a tunnel. The tunnel though would only run from it's 80 or 81 to 83rd or at worst 84th ave. From this point it would become an open trench again all the way into the river valley. The would be a flyover at saskatchewan drive with a observation deck on the bridge overlooking the river valley with interpretive markers for tourists. Now going back to the whyte ave area, the area above the tunnel could be develloped with retail businesses that would completely connect the businesses east and west of 103rd. With a design like this we accomplish a free flow roadway into our downtown core as well as we reduce traffic on whyte and 103rd, in addition we improve pedestrian traffic flow on 82nd ave. Oh and 103rd after the archway could be narrowed to 1 or 2 lanes and either more businesses could be built or parking could be installed.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  36. #236
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default ......hmmm

    now I'm a little confused,does this imply that the street in front of my place of employment would no longer exist? This would have a detramental effect on our buisness (DELUXE/HUB CIGAR/BOOKSTORE etc) Being on 81 and gateway ....Also would this area be just a sidewalk over a hole/trench? with no street traffic for mail/taxi/police/fire /ambulance/courier /...customers?,Could traffic still turn from 81 ave on to gateway north ?what kind of traffic could turn on to whyte from gateway ?
    I have been told that they are building a 4 or 5 story condo east of the tracks on 81 /82 ave....how would this effect the plan ?
    just confused about the direction of this plan...

  37. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells View Post
    When people propose a covered tunnel for Gateway I have visions of the Rathole.

    On a more reasonable facet, though, how would traffic from Old Strathcona access a tunnel that runs from 78 Ave, below Whyte Avenue, to the riverbank?
    I'm imagining something more along the lines of the 97th ave tunnel under the leg grounds. I'd like to see it start before Whyte but I'm wondering on routing for traffic that wants to go to the Scona/University.Bonnie Doon area.

    Oh and hi to everyone. Long time lurker. First post.

  38. #238

    Default

    It could have mood lighting and disco balls for street lights and I'd take it if it got me off gateway boulveard.

    All I ask for is no speed limit. People on the SS just wanna get HOME!!!! no exits either.. lol

  39. #239
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    man whatever happened to this? this was a big topic a couple months ago.

  40. #240

    Default

    Transportation issues seem to ping pong between this bridge expansion, west lrt, anthony henday, and potholes depending on the phase of the moon.

    Most practical solution would be an sub-grade roadway, 2 lanes in each direction, running from the current Gateway/Calgary Tr routes north of 68Ave, along the exising Gateway land, under Sask Drive, and down a sloped grade to a new 4/6 lane two directional bridge.

    Building a sub-grade roadway would be significantly cheaper than tunneling or capping the route. Traffic and pedestrian access can be combined on universal bridges over the lowered roadway, and additional pedestrian bridges can be placed at 85/80/78Ave to further link the two sides. This would help to join the two sides of white avenue more than now, where drivers are forced to dodge errant jaywalkers in bumper to bumper traffic. Pedestrians can't even cross to 102st at 78/80 ave with the tracks/fenced parking lots, showing the current split in the whyte ave community.

    As a plus, you can remove a significant amount of southbound traffic running in front of Strathcona School as well. This 50 zone is a big bottleneck south of whyte ave in the afternoons.

    Traffic access to the major intersections can be achieved using simple on/off ramps at 76Ave/82Ave/Sask Dr with minimal extra land needed. The existing corridor east of Gateway allows for these ramps, and future expansion for LRT access to white ave and mill woods. Not only will this help remove the congestion that happens at the intersections, it takes out the safety issues of the hairpin turn, the grade on Queen Elizabeth Park Road, and the congestion crossing the river into downtown. Plus you lower the grade level, thereby reducing the noise level the traffic actually inflicts on those poor whyte ave patrons.

    Those who are expecting a three lane two way 110km/h expressway from anthony henday to the downtown core will be sorely dissapointed. Unless the city razes a 6 lane space along the Gateway corridor and adds interchanges to match at 34/whitemud/55/63 ave to match, it will never happen. We will never see an expressway like Whitemud/Anthony Henday/Yellowhead to the downtown core, all we can do is improve the street traffic marginally. This is a step in the right direction to do that.
    Last edited by blainehamilton; 21-05-2008 at 04:20 PM.

  41. #241
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,042

    Default

    Impressive thinking... but we still have a problem with the north bank of the river, what do you propose for that little problem?

  42. #242

    Default

    The existing roadways for 105st, river valley road, rossdale road, 97ave and bellamy hill are adaquate to carry the traffic load into the city core. The major bottlenecks are at 80ave/82ave/saskatchewan drive/queen elizabeth park road. This type of development removes all them.

    Eventually an expansion of river valley road and rossdale road to multilane two way would be required to improve the east/west flow of traffic.

    Remember, we aren't looking at a 110km/h expressway, just a method of reducing congestion.

  43. #243
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I still struggle with a $90M cost. $900M I could understand but $90M for quite a large span seems a little cheap?
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveB View Post
    I still struggle with a $90M cost. $900M I could understand but $90M for quite a large span seems a little cheap?
    90 M was for a replacement of the current bridge, with near the same size span.


  45. #245
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,861

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    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?
    Hey Ken, thanks for considering us cyclists and pedestrians.

    I ride across the High Level to work & back, but when it's windy (and it can get really gusty on the High Level) I walk my bike. I'm tall, my bike is big, and its design (comfort urban) means my seat is nearly level with the top rung of the guardrail, and I'm usually riding on the guardrail side. Last week the gusts were so bad pieces of wood were blowing off a truck and slamming into the mesh on the guardrail. Riding would have been extremely dangerous and stupid!

    The High Level needs higher guard rails and a wind break that don't obstruct the view (maybe traffic side wind break)!

    And, of course, there are cyclists who continue to ride in winter. A covered break on a new bridge would really be nice. And it would look great!

    Y'Know, if we had more cyclists, we might not need a bridge so badly?
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  46. #246
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    I walked across the High Level last week and the wind gusts nearly blew me off and into the river!
    “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

  47. #247
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    So many nice bridge designs out there.

    Last edited by Speedyturtle; 24-05-2008 at 01:07 AM.

  48. #248

    Default

    Why is a new bridge needed? From what I've seen, there isn't enough traffic now and building a new bridge will only encourage more people to drive. Why not wait until the LRT is open - let that take the bulk of downtown bound traffic.

    Seems a big waste money and unnecessary damage to the river valley.

  49. #249

    Default

    ^^ The bridge is reaching the end of its lifespan, and I'm guessing you don't drive this route during rush hour.

  50. #250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    oh god not the river valley police again...

  51. #251

    Default

    I think the biggest reason we need a new bridge, is simply image. I took a couple of individuals from out of town to our downtown from the airport the other day - they couldn't believe the windy route into downtown. It is what it seems, cheap. We don't have to settle for second best, a beautiful Gateway bridge will do more for the image of this city than just about anything. And, it will be incredibly functional too.

    As to LRT - yes, we need it. But one solution is not the answer, we need a number of transportaiton options, and a bridge is part of that. It won't just help people in cars either, but also those using busses. It will also help the environment, by eliminating all those cars stuck idling in the river valley we have now.

  52. #252
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think the biggest reason we need a new bridge, is simply image. I took a couple of individuals from out of town to our downtown from the airport the other day - they couldn't believe the windy route into downtown. It is what it seems, cheap. We don't have to settle for second best, a beautiful Gateway bridge will do more for the image of this city than just about anything. And, it will be incredibly functional too.

    As to LRT - yes, we need it. But one solution is not the answer, we need a number of transportaiton options, and a bridge is part of that. It won't just help people in cars either, but also those using busses. It will also help the environment, by eliminating all those cars stuck idling in the river valley we have now.
    I understand your point but with that said if the biggest reason we need a new bridge is image than we better start looking at other project of way more importance. Now that I got that off my chest I do support a new bridge. If this new bridge is built would it be a one way bridge, south to north? moterised vehicle only, or multi use? concrete or steel? ultra modern or classic style?

    As a number of people on here have stated, if a bridge is going to be built accross the valley, this bridge has to definitly be made to further symbolize the city of Edmonton. The High level bridge was built strictly for utility and not too much was probably considered in way of architectural beauty. A new bridge should be not only be fully functional and efficient but also it should be something that people from Edmonton can look at and say "Wow that is a nice bridge" or "Who needs the confederation bridge or the Golden Gate, we got our own icon."
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  53. #253
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Once again, by far the smartest decision would be a small bridge similar to the Walterdale and some changes to how 109th and Gateway lead down to the River Valley.

    If you are calling for a "showpiece" top of bank to top of bank bridge, you are looking at something that will probably cost a couple billion dollars and require massive changes to the arteries on both the South and North sides. I don't think such a massive undertaking can be justified by either traffic levels or the need for us to have a really fancy bridge to show off.

  54. #254
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    how about a nice looking and functional bridge? or are the two mutually exclusive?

  55. #255
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    I don't think they are, but it's tough to make much of an impression with a bridge that has a span of only a couple hundred feet. Most of the iconic bridges people think of are thousands of feet long, which is half the reason they're iconic to begin with.

  56. #256
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    I think if city council wants to do a bridge and they want it to span a pretty big distance then the bridge has to be iconic in design. If the city wants another bridge to get accross the river than they should quit wasting time and build a function nice looking bridge.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  57. #257

    Default

    Is there any new news on this plan or whats going on???

    I was driving past end rail park lately and it looks like some works being done.. other then the burnt out rail car sitting there. that looks ugly because vandals must of hit it.. that needs to be removed soon as people drive past that and see it every day that are entering the city from the airport... is there a plan to clean that up???

  58. #258
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,902

    Default

    ^ I would hope so. It really is ugly (the burned out caboose), and it was actually cleaned up about a month ago, but the garbage container with all of the refuse has been sitting there all this time. I would expect the City to remove that at the very least - soon!

    The other work going on is unrelated to the caboose - it looks like it's deep tunnel work on an existing tunnel - they've been at it since August.

    None of this is related to the proposed expressway or whatever.
    Almost always open to debate...

  59. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink View Post
    ^ I would hope so. It really is ugly (the burned out caboose), and it was actually cleaned up about a month ago, but the garbage container with all of the refuse has been sitting there all this time. I would expect the City to remove that at the very least - soon!

    The other work going on is unrelated to the caboose - it looks like it's deep tunnel work on an existing tunnel - they've been at it since August.

    None of this is related to the proposed expressway or whatever.
    Do't like the concept at all. The vacant land is a historic site - end of the first railway into Edmonton. Regardless of what people say, a trench with a freeway in it will destroy Old Scona. My next question is why? This is not needed. The LRT can handle commuter traffic into the core, so why build more roads and encourage more car traffic. Edmonton is so backwards.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  60. #260
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink View Post
    ^ I would hope so. It really is ugly (the burned out caboose), and it was actually cleaned up about a month ago, but the garbage container with all of the refuse has been sitting there all this time. I would expect the City to remove that at the very least - soon!

    The other work going on is unrelated to the caboose - it looks like it's deep tunnel work on an existing tunnel - they've been at it since August.

    None of this is related to the proposed expressway or whatever.
    Do't like the concept at all. The vacant land is a historic site - end of the first railway into Edmonton. Regardless of what people say, a trench with a freeway in it will destroy Old Scona. My next question is why? This is not needed. The LRT can handle commuter traffic into the core, so why build more roads and encourage more car traffic. Edmonton is so backwards.
    Because the current entrance into downtown is also used by visitors, and the current configuration is a total disaster.

  61. #261

    Default

    True - unless you know the city, it is very difficult to figure out how to get to downtown from anywhere on the South side of the city. I would hate to be a visitor here as there is no efficient, easy-to-find route on the way to downtown from QEII or the airport.

  62. #262
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    The hairpin off Sask Drive towards downtown is one major bottleneck that needs to be ironed out somehow.

    What a stupid design.

  63. #263
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    Gateway Blvd through Old Strathcona does not have be an expressway, nor do I want it to be one. But that hairpin must be eliminated.
    “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

  64. #264
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Most of the area in question is the very scenic Edmonton parking lots;
    http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...16501&t=h&z=16

    But when you consider that if you swing 104 St (probably around 85th Ave) and Gateway over onto the new alignment you can then reduce their width to be an average 2 lane street. So at the end of the day you may end up with more green space rather then less.

    Seems like another much ado about nothing. They aren't planning an 8 lane freeway down the train track alignment like they were about 1970 or so. A bit of a notch where Strathcona Park is to get you under Saskachewan Drive and eliminate the hairpin.

    Of course this is exactly where the high speed rail alignment is proposed so some plans may need to be bounced off the province too, who knows there may be some opportunities of scale like EPCOR Tower and the LRT
    Last edited by sundance; 26-11-2008 at 06:49 PM.

  65. #265
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,319

    Default

    I like the Gateway bridge. However, I have one concern. If Walterdale Hill remains northbound one way, this could mean about five or six lanes crowding onto the Walterdale Bridge. Also, we should also consider how much traffic 105 Street and Rossdale Road can handle.

    I don't know what to suggest, but I think we need to find a way to accommodate the increased Southbound traffic.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  66. #266

    Default

    that's why i wanted to know if the basic plans for road alignment, north south lanes how many and where they are going to be situated. was available yet... you know standard pdf.. if not how long are we going to wait to see it?
    what type of priority is this bridge 10 years? 20? 2? 5?

  67. #267

    Default

    The province owns the ROW North of whyte right? And the top of the HLB... Would their plan for possible high speed rail require a new bridge or would they want to utlize the HLB?

    Any tunneling and new bridge building in Strathcona would ideally be done in concert with the province. Maybe then we can find the funds to start this tunnel (cut and cover) south of Whyte Ave. Howwver, I do understand that HSR would not want to cross the river half way down the bank.

    Solutions?

  68. #268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    The hairpin off Sask Drive towards downtown is one major bottleneck that needs to be ironed out somehow.

    What a stupid design.
    That hairpin is the only interesting part of the route to downtown. Come on - Gateway Blvd is an ugly mess - the City needs to clean that up. And most people come from cities where such turns and twists in the roads are not unusual. I swear that Edmonton is bent on straightening out every road and levelling the city to make naivgation as simple as possible.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  69. #269
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    ^ Maybe for average everyday citizens, the hairpin is "good enuff fer lil ol E-town", but for first-time visitors, tourists, business travellers, new residents thinking of moving here and what-not? It's embarrassing, it impedes downtown access and dangerous to drive during the winter. First-timers get lost trying to get downtown from the airport because of the clusterf^ck between Gateway Blvd and downtown. Believe me, I've heard the comments first-hand from people new here.
    “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

  70. #270
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Aaaaamen to that.

    I've heard numerous stories from the corporate world where visiting VPs, etc, have literally said "wtf?" upon hitting that turn.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  71. #271

    Default

    If somebody does not want to move here because of a slightly indirect road that is over with in approximately 30 seconds, I don't want them here.

    Is it ideal? No. Is it potentially confusing to new visitors? Yes, although there are many different factors in many different cities all over the world that would be confusing to outsiders. Just watch the tv show "Amazing Race" for new examples each week. One I can think of that is quite prevalent is where the same street continues but changes names, perhaps when you cross a municipal boundary.

    But if you think that this little jog in the road is creating a significant impediment to attracting business or residents to the city, I don't buy it.

  72. #272
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    ^ It's one of the many image problems that Edmonton has right now. It does need to be addresseed at some point.

  73. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transplanted_Edm View Post

    But if you think that this little jog in the road is creating a significant impediment to attracting business or residents to the city, I don't buy it.
    just a small piece of a very large puzzle. First impressions do mean a lot, and the solution to this problem is fairly cheap and easily do-able. Why shouldn't we make our city better?

  74. #274

    Default

    the city seams to work on one bridge at a time. and this project will include a new bridge. is this going to start after the Quesnell widening? or is it something that will be done in 10 years?

  75. #275

    Default

    I really don't think this project currently has any movement or timeline behind it. There literally has been no news on this topic since Mandel throw it out there around the same time this topic on C2E was created in early Q1/2008. To me, it was Mandel firing a shotgun, and seeing what got hit... (flinging dung to see what sticks...)

    Perhaps an city hall insider here will give us more information, there isn't even too much that I've found on the city's website either.

  76. #276

    Default

    so was it just a publicity stunt then? just to make it look like he was doing something after the election?
    since they just worked on that bridge to extend the lifetime of it. i would think it would be a waste of money to now replace it or wait till its needed first eh?

  77. #277

    Default

    not really so much a publicity stunt, though it was done post election - wasn't it part of 90 day thing? Memory is vague, but I thought Mandel fired out a bunch of ideas, and went with the ones that gathered the most of amount of flies...

    Maybe tomorrow we hear more news from the city on this. Really hard to say

  78. #278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ Maybe for average everyday citizens, the hairpin is "good enuff fer lil ol E-town", but for first-time visitors, tourists, business travellers, new residents thinking of moving here and what-not? It's embarrassing, it impedes downtown access and dangerous to drive during the winter. First-timers get lost trying to get downtown from the airport because of the clusterf^ck between Gateway Blvd and downtown. Believe me, I've heard the comments first-hand from people new here.
    Actually, the drive up that disaster called Gateway Blvd would turn off any visitor. once you get to the hairpin and then down into the valley, it's actually quite nice. Sorry, but I think you're placing way to much importance on that hairpin turn.

    Ohhh, there s a a bend on Groat Road, better straighten that out before somebody thinking of moving here gets turned off by it.

    Yep, a lovely freeway blasting through Old Scona would make me want to move to Edmonton
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  79. #279

    Default

    sorry, but how do you go from correcting the hairpin to "freeway blasting through old scona"

    Kind of jumping to conclusions here... aren't we?

  80. #280
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,036

    Default

    I've been to many cities, and none of them feature a major roadway into a downtown that requires a near-180 degree turn. That is what needs to be eliminated for many reasons, so spare me the hysterics, lightrail.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 30-11-2008 at 09:38 PM.
    “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

  81. #281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    I've been to many cities, and none of them feature a major roadway into a downtown that requires a near-180 degree turn. That is what needs to be eliminated for many reasons, so spare me the hysterics, lightrail.
    What hysterics?

    My point is that the hairpin is not a big deal - if there's a way to fix it that makes it better for the city and still retain the character of the neighbourhoods - fine. Do it. My point is that people on this board seem to think it's a big deal that there's a hairpin turn on one of the routes to downtown Edmonton. You can continue on Saskatchewan Drive go downtown via 99th street.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  82. #282

    Default

    It is a big deal, with a simple fix, that doesn't mean there will be a freeway ripping through old scona as you have hysterically suggested.

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It is a big deal, with a simple fix, that doesn't mean there will be a freeway ripping through old scona as you have hysterically suggested.
    Look at the title to this thread and you say I'm hysterical!!!!!!!

    I'm only questioning the need to spend so much money to correct something that is not an issue. Why make it easier to drive around the city when the money would be much better spent elsewhere.

    BTW, I never liked "project Uni" when it was conceived by the city years ago. Routing traffic to downtown via 103 street, an old industrial road that is, in my hysterical words, butt ugly. I've never seen a worse approach to any city centre. The gem is that hairpin turn or the run along Saskatchewan Drive through the valley and into downtown Edmonton.

    Okay, so maybe it won't be a freeway, but you can bet it will be overbuilt

    Edmonton has made so many mistakes in land use planning and transportation, I'm just concerned this might be another.
    Last edited by lightrail; 01-12-2008 at 12:31 PM.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  84. #284
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Okay, so maybe it won't be a freeway, but you can bet it will be overbuilt

    Edmonton has made so many mistakes in land use planning and transportation, I'm just concerned this might be another.
    There's nothing wrong with being concerned, but until the city actually seriously looks into doing something about the hairpin, I don't think there's much to worry about.

  85. #285

    Default

    There are still way too many traffic lights on Gateway to ever consider it a freeway but I think a better connection to downtown from the south is essential. In this case we wouldn't be building roads just for the hell of it. I think we could garnish a lot of economic benefit by having a more efficient and pleasant approach to downtown from the airport/QEII.

    However, I do agree with lightrail that we should be careful that we don't overbuild it. But by that I mean I'd like to see a road that disturbs Old Strathcona as little as possible. Either a covered tunnel or just the removal of the hairpin. Please no trenches.

  86. #286

    Default

    The title of the thread was taken directly from the article that was posted at the start of this thread.

    Knee Jerk reaction by the paper? Yes
    Knee Jerk reaction by lightrail? Yes

  87. #287
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    the hairpin is one of many things that need to be improved, but in my opinion it would be probably one of the most expensive to fix. plus there will be a firestorm of opposition.

  88. #288
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,319

    Default

    I agree, there could be a huge fight over this bridge, especially in Strathcona. But I think that Strathcona residents would probably appreciate more free-flow traffic instead of rush-hour traffic between Whyte and Walterdale Road.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  89. #289

    Default

    This is interesting from today's Edmonton Sun ...

    Construction will begin in the next few years on what will be the city's first new downtown bridge in a generation, say officials.

    A committee of council today gave administration the green light to begin more detailed planning on a four- or five-lane span to replace the two-lane, 96-year-old Walterdale Bridge.

    The committee was presented with three options, ranging in price from $65 million to $190 million, based on 2008 dollars.

    Civic politicians picked the cheapest option, which involves replacing the existing structure with a wider span.

    "This is by far the best option," said Mayor Stephen Mandel, insisting however, that the span must have a "signature" design.

    The other options involved extensive rebuilding of roadways leading to and from the bridge, including an underpass on Gateway Boulevard at Saskatchewan Boulevard.

    Construction could begin in 2013, the transportation and public works committee was told.

    It's unlikely the existing Walterdale Bridge could remain open during construction, states a report to council.

    "The landing area for the north edge of the bridge must remain consistent with the existing bridge due to historical and environmental constraints," states the document.

    The James MacDonald Bridge, which opened in 1971, was the last downtown bridge built.

    Mandel has repeatedly talked about the need for a new span from the southside into the downtown.

    [email protected]

  90. #290
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,973

    Default

    Sask Drive Tunnel got nixed.

    EDMONTON — Plans to create a large tunnel under Saskatchewan Drive for traffic travelling along a widened Gateway Boulevard have been nixed by a city committee.

    The idea was initially raised last year as the city grappled with how to replace the aging Walterdale Bridge. The tunnel would have eliminated the hairpin turn off Saskatchewan Drive that vehicles must now take to the bridge. Costs were estimated at between $170 million and $190 million to widen Gateway and go under Saskatchewan Drive.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...905/story.html

  91. #291
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Bah, that hairpin gives off such a bad image of Edmonton....
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  92. #292

    Default

    “Are the traffic problems enough to warrant the disturbance through that community? We don’t say it is. We’re recognizing why spend $120 million for a realignment for a very small change in travel time,” Latte said.

    This guy doesn't get it. It's not all about time savings. There would be improvements in safety to vehicles and pedestrians if the hairpin was removed and if Gateway Boulevard was grade separated from Saskatchewan Drive. Not to mention the perception of our city to visitors and making it easier for them to access downtown.

  93. #293
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I don't like it.

    I saw this sign at the shoe fix store on Jasper ave and 108 street: (I am paraphrasing it):

    Of "cheap", "good" and "fast" you can only expect two:

    If you want it cheap and good, it will not be fast.
    If you want it good and fast, it will not be cheap.
    If you want it cheap and fast, it will not be good.

    With this solution, they have managed to do only one out of three. They chose the cheapest option which isn't that good, but it would have been tolerable if it was fast. Getting the cheapest and worst option and having to wait for it for 4 to 5 years is not good.

  94. #294
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Does this mean the hairpin stays??

  95. #295
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    A decision seems very short sighted to me, especially if they want the LRT to use that bridge.

  96. #296
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I don't like it.

    I saw this sign at the shoe fix store on Jasper ave and 108 street: (I am paraphrasing it):

    Of "cheap", "good" and "fast" you can only expect two:

    If you want it cheap and good, it will not be fast.
    If you want it good and fast, it will not be cheap.
    If you want it cheap and fast, it will not be good.

    With this solution, they have managed to do only one out of three. They chose the cheapest option which isn't that good, but it would have been tolerable if it was fast. Getting the cheapest and worst option and having to wait for it for 4 to 5 years is not good.
    This is very scary. That is two things we agree on in two days.

  97. #297
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Of "cheap", "good" and "fast" you can only expect two:

    If you want it cheap and good, it will not be fast.
    If you want it good and fast, it will not be cheap.
    If you want it cheap and fast, it will not be good.
    Replace 'good' with 'reliable' and this general rule applies to computers, automobiles, etc.

  98. #298
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    I'm confused. Is the Old Strathcona business assoc. concerned about a tunnel under whyte ave taking traffic away or are they concerned with at grade traffic barreling through there, as it does now ?

    Sounds like some circular logic to me.

    I don't like the hairpin but the real traffic jam occurs at the bottom of the hill.

    Right now I don't have an opinion either way.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 07-04-2009 at 01:43 PM.

  99. #299
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Decisions like this is why Edmonton will always have an image problem (ie Hicktown)

  100. #300

    Default

    Another reason to not drive into the downtown core of Edmonton. Hit Anthony henday at the south side of the city and steer clear!


    Oops. That means less traffic going TO Whyte Ave, as well as past it...


    It's looking more and more like the most viable route to downtown is via AHD and Yellowhead. No matter that it's 25km extra driving out of the way.

    At least we will continue to see barrels of flowers trying to mask 20 blocks of urban decay leading up to Whyte Ave, as a silver lining.

    Maybe a major bus crash on Saskatchewan Drive and Queen Elizabeth Park road is required to consider improvements...

Page 3 of 33 FirstFirst 123456713 ... 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
  •