Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 223

Thread: New Terwillegar Foot Bridge

  1. #1

    Default New Terwillegar Foot Bridge



    EDMONTON - City councillors approved a $24-million Terwillegar footbridge Wednesday, but still haven’t decided how crews will reach the site to build it.

    The 280-metre-long structure, on the north side of Terwillegar Park, is seen as the last major link in a walking and cycling trail from one end of Edmonton to the other along the North Saskatchewan River valley.

    The city will pay $8 million and the other two levels of government will cover the rest.

    The stressed-ribbon design for the span was passed 11-1.

    Only Coun. Kerry Diotte opposed the plan, asking if money is best spent on a structure he described as costing almost $1 million a metre (the actual price is less than $100,000 a metre).

    “It’s contentious,” Diotte said. “I have received many phone calls from people who don’t want it.”
    I for one am very excited for this footbridge... I love all the single track in the west end and this will help link all the multiuse paths with Terwillegar Park... and a future footbridge will link this with the Cameron Heights parks area...

    Diotte's comments are a pretty big LOL FAIL

  2. #2

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm not a fan of how much they're developing Terwillegar Park.

    Some of the better single track there for biking is getting developed and paved. There was a really awesome rolling downhill ride on the west side that's now a big wide paved "road," and at the bottom of what was once a great downhill lies a bridge. That's sad.. like Blackmud Creek way back in the early 90s, it was a great place for mountain biking.

    I guess the city has to find a balance between making the river valley multiuse friendly, but they're taking away the great bumpy/rooty rides and levelling and paving it all to do it.

  4. #4

    Default

    O Kerry....
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  5. #5
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,369

    Default

    ^^yup, we have lost a good amount of awesome single track in there... man I miss tuesday night races. I do however like the bridge idea from a connection standpoint.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  6. #6

    Default

    The rooty/roller coaster still exists from near the Henday bridge all the way into the park-proper... one of my favorite trails in the whole river valley. on the 'east' end, there's many fun drop ins still from that graveled path to what ever that road is where the houses fell down into the valley.

    (However - the best singletrack/slight downhill trails in the city by far are the trails between science park and goldbar behind the refinery)

  7. #7

    Default

    The Journal map is so bad because the orientation if it is North is to the right, not conventionally upwards and there is no compass points shown.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,699

    Default

    I have always wanted to live in this particular area as shown in the map, and it would be nice to have walking access to these bridges. The connectivity of bridges and walking trails will be neat.

    Until I found out the going prices for homes in this area.
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The Journal map is so bad because the orientation if it is North is to the right, not conventionally upwards and there is no compass points shown.
    we should be lucky to even get a story about Edmonton in the Calgary Journal... definitely a poor map. Up is west... I'd be confused if I wasn't already familar with this area... should have a compass.

  10. #10
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Out of curiosity, what is the story with all the land "in the flat" below the Edmonton Country Club? Does the city own that land? Is it a potential park? I'm curious about what exactly the long term plan with that land is. I know up until the 50's (give or take a decade) that the ECC had the back nine down there, but since then I'm not sure what's up with the land. I doubt the ECC still owns it.

    Ah, I guess the Journal article did mention it to some extent, but not really:

    The bridge links to the Centennial Lands, about the same size as Hawrelak Park, which the city bought in 2007.Work is supposed to start next month so it can be finished by the end of 2016 to meet a funding schedule set by the federal government.
    Coun. Karen Leibovici wants to create a permanent road with parking near the north side of the bridge so people can reach it from the west end without having to travel to Terwillegar.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 18-07-2013 at 12:02 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Million Meter Kerri!!!

    Connecting our river valley system is important.

    has anyone seen designs for this bridge?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  12. #12

    Default

    CTV Channel 2 news at 12 did a spot on this.

    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  13. #13

    Default

    Kerry is getting phone calls... from his constituents? Who are waaaay north-east of this locale, and who already enjoy excellently funded and built Valley trails and Ravine trails/ infrastructure? My shaming finger is not big enough on this one... I guess if the bridge does n't carry cars what's the use, right? Keep piling on the hate for cyclists and pedestrians, Kerry.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  14. #14

    Default

    ^ Hey.. leave Million Meter Kerry alone... he tries hard lol.

    I guess that sound bite was ill thought out hey!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ... has anyone seen designs for this bridge?
    Could be stunning. Could be meh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stressed_ribbon_bridge
    ... gobsmacked

  16. #16

    Default



    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  17. #17
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    CTV Channel 2 news at 12 did a spot on this.

    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/
    link to the actual story
    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?cli...ylistPageNum=1


    “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

  18. #18

    Default

    I like it!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  19. #19

    Default

    I remember when i was 10 or somewhere near that age before even the fort edmonton bridge was built and that new sub divsion was put in, i had gone down that access road and somehow got lost, freaked out and took that path. Somehow I ended up at the country club, the snooty richy rich's were all ****** because i came on to the golf course without even knowing where the hell i was.

    Tl DR: got lost ended up near site of new bridge to be built.

  20. #20

    Default

    ^Did the richy richies shout "get off the lawn" L O L
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  21. #21

    Default

    I was on the walking path of the golf course or w/e you call it, crying (i was a kid and freaked the hell out) that i was lost and they weren't even caring. Bunch of pricks.

  22. #22

    Default

    ^Where's Superman when you need him, that's what I say.
    Anyway, I do sympathize.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #23

    Default

    I would like to know why they bulldozed the homes that used to be up top over looking the fort Edmonton bridge though.

  24. #24

    Default

    Maybe soil erosion.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  25. #25

    Default

    no it was in the early 90's the sub divsion that replaced it took out all the trees and everything http://goo.gl/maps/SQxbc

  26. #26

    Default

    I'm for the bridge, but $24M seems like a lot. Do the bridges need to be that fancy? Sure I want them to look good, but having used the Fort Edm Park bridge a few times, it sure seems overly fancy for something you can't really see from any vantage point nor used by more than a pathetically small fraction of the population.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  27. #27

    Default

    http://www.wired.com/design/2013/07/...ell-the-roses/

    The Garden Bridge, as it’s currently being called, was selected by Transport for London as the winning design for a new walkway that will span the Thames between Temple and the South Bank. Heatherwick put it plainly when the concept was unveiled earlier this summer: “The idea is simple; to connect north and south London with a garden.”

    Not right for this location but a very cool idea.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    I remember when i was 10 or somewhere near that age before even the fort edmonton bridge was built and that new sub divsion was put in, i had gone down that access road and somehow got lost, freaked out and took that path. Somehow I ended up at the country club, the snooty richy rich's were all ****** because i came on to the golf course without even knowing where the hell i was.

    Tl DR: got lost ended up near site of new bridge to be built.
    That sounds pretty biased. How do you know they were rich? Maybe golf was their passion and they gave up other niceties in life to play golf there.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I'm for the bridge, but $24M seems like a lot. Do the bridges need to be that fancy? Sure I want them to look good, but having used the Fort Edm Park bridge a few times, it sure seems overly fancy for something you can't really see from any vantage point nor used by more than a pathetically small fraction of the population.
    Yeah, maybe it's the best cost-benefit design but every dollar of excess spending is a dollar not available to serve a greater need.

  30. #30

    Default

    That country club isn't free to join... And it's not cheap either. If golf is your passion, there's a lot cheaper ways to go about it... Darkie is probably right in his assertion this time.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    I remember when i was 10 or somewhere near that age before even the fort edmonton bridge was built and that new sub divsion was put in, i had gone down that access road and somehow got lost, freaked out and took that path. Somehow I ended up at the country club, the snooty richy rich's were all ****** because i came on to the golf course without even knowing where the hell i was.

    Tl DR: got lost ended up near site of new bridge to be built.
    That sounds pretty biased. How do you know they were rich? Maybe golf was their passion and they gave up other niceties in life to play golf there.
    This coming from someone who wanted to tear the HLB down......

  32. #32

    Default

    Would rather see this money spent on roads....a much more urgent need.....
    mandel is a cry baby

  33. #33

    Default

    ^Typical im a car driver so im more superior to you biking / walking people kind of attitude let me guess your going to vote Diotte as well arnt you?

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The Journal map is so bad because the orientation if it is North is to the right, not conventionally upwards and there is no compass points shown.
    Thanks, I was trying to figure out that map.

    I am a little confused about the need for this pedestrian bridge. We now have a pedestrian bridge at henday, this proposed bridge at Terwillegar, the Fort Edmonton bridge, and the Whitemud bridge. All in the space of about 5miles as crow flies. Access is already pretty good across the river in the west end. We need more?
    Last edited by Replacement; 18-07-2013 at 10:38 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  35. #35

    Default

    ^Its the fact that its going to be a continuous bike/ ped route you wouldn't half *** a road network so why half *** this? The plan to make it all the way to devon has been on the books for years btw.

    Also i don't have wings nor does my bike so don't call us crows thanks

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    ^Its the fact that its going to be a continuous bike/ ped route you wouldn't half *** a road network so why half *** this? The plan to make it all the way to devon has been on the books for years btw.

    Also i don't have wings nor does my bike so don't call us crows thanks
    heh, I love cycling in the river valley, don't get me wrong. Wish I was still in the West End. I'm just jealous.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  37. #37

    Default

    There's nothing stopping you from biking to the west end. Myself i biked the whole length and back years ago only took a few hours.

  38. #38
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    ^Its the fact that its going to be a continuous bike/ ped route you wouldn't half *** a road network so why half *** this? The plan to make it all the way to devon has been on the books for years btw.

    Also i don't have wings nor does my bike so don't call us crows thanks
    heh, I love cycling in the river valley, don't get me wrong. Wish I was still in the West End. I'm just jealous.
    We went over this a few years ago on these boards. You were claiming that even the Fort Edmonton bridge was superfluous and that the West end was getting far more bridges than the East end. The reality is that with the Fort Edmonton and Terwillegar bridges, things will be about even now.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    ^Its the fact that its going to be a continuous bike/ ped route you wouldn't half *** a road network so why half *** this? The plan to make it all the way to devon has been on the books for years btw.

    Also i don't have wings nor does my bike so don't call us crows thanks
    heh, I love cycling in the river valley, don't get me wrong. Wish I was still in the West End. I'm just jealous.
    We went over this a few years ago on these boards. You were claiming that even the Fort Edmonton bridge was superfluous and that the West end was getting far more bridges than the East end. The reality is that with the Fort Edmonton and Terwillegar bridges, things will be about even now.
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area. Especially expensive bridges. I like the Ft, Edmonton bridge but its likely the least used bridge in the city and one that is viewable from no known vantage pts. We spend countless millions building signature pedestrian bridges that nobody sees. The Fort Edmonton bridge is easily the most remote bridge in the city. This proposed one is as well and bordering the Edmonton Country Club which is hard to actually even locate without GPS. I've been to that region twice in my life. Is this designer bridge deigned as another plum to the prestigious Edmonton Country club? I see no real reason for it.

    Who really is going to make use of all these bridges in low density areas and around basically nothing?

    This little quote from the source article should raise flags from the outset. "City councillors approved the 24M terwillegar bridge Wednesday but still haven't determined how crews will reach the site to build it."

    What a ***********. Build an expensive bridge in a very remote inaccessible area that requires extra funds just so that construction site can be assessed. lol That should be the first clue not to proceed.

    Any of the pedestrian bridges in the east are highly used and visible. They're also cheapest possible builds as well.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 10:22 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    There's nothing stopping you from biking to the west end. Myself i biked the whole length and back years ago only took a few hours.
    The bridge would be around 25K from me one way and largely inaccessible.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    There's nothing stopping you from biking to the west end. Myself i biked the whole length and back years ago only took a few hours.
    The bridge would be around 25K from me one way and largely inaccessible.
    The bridge might be 25 K(M) from you, but both bridges are easily accessible and very well used... So I'm not sure what your point is...
    Last edited by Medwards; 19-07-2013 at 10:20 AM.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    ^Its the fact that its going to be a continuous bike/ ped route you wouldn't half *** a road network so why half *** this? The plan to make it all the way to devon has been on the books for years btw.

    Also i don't have wings nor does my bike so don't call us crows thanks
    heh, I love cycling in the river valley, don't get me wrong. Wish I was still in the West End. I'm just jealous.
    We went over this a few years ago on these boards. You were claiming that even the Fort Edmonton bridge was superfluous and that the West end was getting far more bridges than the East end. The reality is that with the Fort Edmonton and Terwillegar bridges, things will be about even now.
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area. Especially expensive bridges. I like the Ft, Edmonton bridge but its likely the least used bridge in the city and one that is viewable from no known vantage pts. We spend countless millions building signature pedestrian bridges that nobody sees. The Fort Edmonton bridge is easily the most remote bridge in the city. This proposed one is as well and bordering the Edmonton Country Club which is hard to actually even locate without GPS.

    Who really is going to make use of all these bridges in low density areas and around basically nothing?

    Any of the pedestrian bridges in the east are highly used and visible. They're also cheapest possible builds as well.
    This pedestrian bridge is used quite a bit, and is very accessible to tons of people in the west end.... Its quite obvious that you've never been to Terwillegar Park or Fort Edmonton Foot bridge, some of the most used areas of our river valley.

    I personally will make use of this footbridge, and the new one. It's all part of a continous river valley path that will eventually go from Devon to Fort Sask.

    As far as no one being able to see the bridge, that's wrong as well. Get out of your car for one god-damn minute. The best things in this world are hidden when you drive. The bridge has many points it can be seen from along various highly used river valley trails.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    There's nothing stopping you from biking to the west end. Myself i biked the whole length and back years ago only took a few hours.
    The bridge would be around 25K from me one way and largely inaccessible.
    The bridge might be 25 K(M) from you, but both bridges are easily accessible and very well used... So I'm not sure what your point is...
    Fort Edmonton bridge is very lightly used even on weekends in great weather. Primarily due to location and not being close to much of anything. Most people in the city wouldn't even be able to find the Fort Edmonton bridge if given the navigation challenge sans GPS.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    ^Its the fact that its going to be a continuous bike/ ped route you wouldn't half *** a road network so why half *** this? The plan to make it all the way to devon has been on the books for years btw.

    Also i don't have wings nor does my bike so don't call us crows thanks
    heh, I love cycling in the river valley, don't get me wrong. Wish I was still in the West End. I'm just jealous.
    We went over this a few years ago on these boards. You were claiming that even the Fort Edmonton bridge was superfluous and that the West end was getting far more bridges than the East end. The reality is that with the Fort Edmonton and Terwillegar bridges, things will be about even now.
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area. Especially expensive bridges. I like the Ft, Edmonton bridge but its likely the least used bridge in the city and one that is viewable from no known vantage pts. We spend countless millions building signature pedestrian bridges that nobody sees. The Fort Edmonton bridge is easily the most remote bridge in the city. This proposed one is as well and bordering the Edmonton Country Club which is hard to actually even locate without GPS.

    Who really is going to make use of all these bridges in low density areas and around basically nothing?

    Any of the pedestrian bridges in the east are highly used and visible. They're also cheapest possible builds as well.
    This pedestrian bridge is used quite a bit, and is very accessible to tons of people in the west end.... Its quite obvious that you've never been to Terwillegar Park or Fort Edmonton Foot bridge, some of the most used areas of our river valley.

    I personally will make use of this footbridge, and the new one. It's all part of a continous river valley path that will eventually go from Devon to Fort Sask.

    As far as no one being able to see the bridge, that's wrong as well. Get out of your car for one god-damn minute. The best things in this world are hidden when you drive. The bridge has many points it can be seen from along various highly used river valley trails.
    I've been to the Fort Edmonton location often enough. I've never seen it used much. About the largest count of people on the bridge at any given time is maybe 20. I've been there often on Saturdays. I wouldn't even know how to get to the Terwillegar bridge from southside tbh.

    Try going on the Louise McKinney bridge sometime before you call Terwillegar and Fort Edmonton areas the most used in the river valley, lol.

    I was cycling in the river valley before you were born.

    ps This article fairly illustrates how remote, and how much difficulty people have in accessing the Fort Edmonton pedestrian bridge for the first time.

    http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2011/10/11/...willow-ravine/

    Personally it took me two times to even find the bridge. Its not even visible AT ANY POINT from the Fort Edmonton boundary trail that accesses it. I walked right past missing the turnoff.

    ps Read the comments in the linked article which all illustrate how much trouble people had even finding the damn Fort Edmonton bridge.

    I love this comment:

    Mark
    Its just like the brilliant edmonton city planners to spend $28M on a bridge no one can find or get to … Lets raise our taxes so we can do this again!

    Almost prophetic, we are doing it again.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 10:38 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #45

    Default

    Its as well used as any of the other footbridges in the city. I'm not sure what your point is again. Because you dont use it, it shouldnt be built? is that your premise here?

    As far as being close to things - its right next to FORT EDMONTON... a well used attraction, and there's signs showing the way. There's also a road that lead right up to the foot bridge itself, for those too lazy to walk the 10 minutes from Fort Edmonton itself....

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I've been to the Fort Edmonton location often enough. I've never seen it used much. About the largest count of people on the bridge at any given time is maybe 20. I've been there often on Saturdays. I wouldn't even know how to get to the Terwillegar bridge from southside tbh.

    Try going on the Louise McKinney bridge sometime before you call Terwillegar and Fort Edmonton areas the most used in the river valley, lol.

    I was cycling in the river valley before you were born.
    I cycle the entire river valley and back almost every weekend. I've been across all the footbridges, including the one you reference.... I dont agree at all with your assertion.

    As far as cycling in the valley before I was born, not sure how old you think I am or aren't but this comment has no barring on the discussion, son.

    To get to the Terwillegar bridge, you go into Terwillegar park... Not so hard to imagine or figure out, unless your dimwitted.

  47. #47

    Default

    Here's a rough map... Yellow are the existing paths that connect with fort Edmonton foot bridge and red is the new foot bridge, blue is the future foot bridge that will connect to Cameron Heights



    yes replacement, in a few years, you'll have another foot bridge to complain about... one that you can make up the same fake arguments about... not accessible, no one will use it... etc... all false... see your signature.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I've been to the Fort Edmonton location often enough. I've never seen it used much. About the largest count of people on the bridge at any given time is maybe 20. I've been there often on Saturdays. I wouldn't even know how to get to the Terwillegar bridge from southside tbh.

    Try going on the Louise McKinney bridge sometime before you call Terwillegar and Fort Edmonton areas the most used in the river valley, lol.

    I was cycling in the river valley before you were born.
    I cycle the entire river valley and back almost every weekend. I've been across all the footbridges, including the one you reference.... I dont agree at all with your assertion.

    As far as cycling in the valley before I was born, not sure how old you think I am or aren't but this comment has no barring on the discussion, son.

    To get to the Terwillegar bridge, you go into Terwillegar park... Not so hard to imagine or figure out, unless your dimwitted.
    Well apparently the city planners, having recommended this bridge and approved it are trying to figure out how to access it to build the damn thing. So imagine its not only me trying to figure out how to access the area.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 10:44 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  49. #49
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area.
    How is it superfluous? You specifically mentioned that the West part of the city already has enough bridges/access as it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Access is already pretty good across the river in the west end. We need more?
    The fact of the matter is that you were opposed to the Fort Edmonton Bridge, and you're opposed to the Terwillegar bridge because you apparently don't live in in or near the area. Not because the access in that part of the city is sufficient without them, because it's absolutely not as without them your only options to cross the river in the West end are either the Quesnell or the Henday, which are extremely far apart if you're following the course of the river. It would be the equivalent of not having the Capilano, Rundle and and Goldbar bridges in the NE. Are those superfluous?

    The reality is that the bridges work out like this:

    East: Rundle, Goldbar, 50 Street, Capilano Bridge, Hwy 16, NE Henday eventually

    Central: Dawson, Louise McKinney, Low Level, 98 Avenue, Walterdale, Menzes, Groat

    West: Laurier, Quesnell, Fort Edmonton, Terwillegar, SW Henday

    Seems like things are pretty balanced, or will be with the construction of Terwillegar.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 19-07-2013 at 10:47 AM.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I've been to the Fort Edmonton location often enough. I've never seen it used much. About the largest count of people on the bridge at any given time is maybe 20. I've been there often on Saturdays. I wouldn't even know how to get to the Terwillegar bridge from southside tbh.

    Try going on the Louise McKinney bridge sometime before you call Terwillegar and Fort Edmonton areas the most used in the river valley, lol.

    I was cycling in the river valley before you were born.
    I cycle the entire river valley and back almost every weekend. I've been across all the footbridges, including the one you reference.... I dont agree at all with your assertion.

    As far as cycling in the valley before I was born, not sure how old you think I am or aren't but this comment has no barring on the discussion, son.

    To get to the Terwillegar bridge, you go into Terwillegar park... Not so hard to imagine or figure out, unless your dimwitted.
    Well apparently the city planners, having recommended this bridge and approved it are trying to figure out how to access it to build the damn thing. So imagine its not only me trying to figure out how to access the area.
    They are talking about how to get past the golf course with heavy machinery... There is no road at this point, but you can still easily access it from any of the west end communities using the foot trails. So sorry that you wont be able to drive right up to it. Get off your lazy ***.... but if you want to be lazy, you can drive to Terwillegar, and from the parking lot, it will be about a 5 minute walk. Please refer to my map.

    Its quite evident that you are just basing your whole discussion off soundbites in the news rather than any factual proof. arguing for the sake of arguing with no real point.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area.
    How is it superfluous? You specifically mentioned that the West part of the city already has enough bridges/access as it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Access is already pretty good across the river in the west end. We need more?
    The fact of the matter is that you were opposed to the Fort Edmonton Bridge, and you're opposed to the Terwillegar bridge because you apparently don't live in in or near the area. Not because the access in that part of the city is sufficient without them, because it's absolutely not as without them your only options to cross the river in the West end are either the Quesnell or the Henday, which are extremely far apart if you're following the course of the river. It would be the equivalent of not having the Capilano, Rundle and and Goldbar bridges in the NE. Are those superfluous?

    The reality is that the bridges work out like this:

    East: Rundle, Goldbar, 50 Street, Capilano Bridge, Hwy 16, NE Henday eventually

    Central: Dawson, Louise McKinney, Low Level, 98 Avenue, Walterdale, Menzes, Groat

    West: Laurier, Quesnell, Fort Edmonton, Terwillegar, SW Henday

    Seems like things are pretty balanced, or will be with the construction of Terwillegar.
    The apparent Edmonton pedestrian bridge equation:

    Build lowest possible cheap *** bridges in east and central and downtown areas that are highly used, highly visible.

    Build very expensive pedestrian bridges in West end in inaccessible, remote, less used areas because well, all the money is in Westend and Riverbend.

    Makes a whole lot of sense.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I've been to the Fort Edmonton location often enough. I've never seen it used much. About the largest count of people on the bridge at any given time is maybe 20. I've been there often on Saturdays. I wouldn't even know how to get to the Terwillegar bridge from southside tbh.

    Try going on the Louise McKinney bridge sometime before you call Terwillegar and Fort Edmonton areas the most used in the river valley, lol.

    I was cycling in the river valley before you were born.
    I cycle the entire river valley and back almost every weekend. I've been across all the footbridges, including the one you reference.... I dont agree at all with your assertion.

    As far as cycling in the valley before I was born, not sure how old you think I am or aren't but this comment has no barring on the discussion, son.

    To get to the Terwillegar bridge, you go into Terwillegar park... Not so hard to imagine or figure out, unless your dimwitted.
    Well apparently the city planners, having recommended this bridge and approved it are trying to figure out how to access it to build the damn thing. So imagine its not only me trying to figure out how to access the area.
    They are talking about how to get past the golf course with heavy machinery... There is no road at this point, but you can still easily access it from any of the west end communities using the foot trails. So sorry that you wont be able to drive right up to it. Get off your lazy ***.... but if you want to be lazy, you can drive to Terwillegar, and from the parking lot, it will be about a 5 minute walk. Please refer to my map.

    Its quite evident that you are just basing your whole discussion off soundbites in the news rather than any factual proof. arguing for the sake of arguing with no real point.
    I'd love to see some stats on amount of users for the respective areas. Fort Edmonton bridge isn't heavily used. Even given that its a signature destination type bridge that was slapped in that location. If anything people access the area just to take a look at the bridge because its currently a novelty. Its not a commonly used area and never was.

    As for terwillegar bridge Edmonton Country Club on one side is the most remote, and least publicly assessable areas I can think of in the entire river valley. On the Terwillegar side no near access points either. Wow lets build an expensive pedestrian bridge in the least assessable area of the river valley. For the second time..

    In both instances the city is having to develop trails to get to the locations. In the case of the Fort Edmonton bridge this was previously a very hard area to access from west end. To say that this was a common use areas that necessitated a bridge is laughable. It was quite a hike in patricia or Wolf willow ravine just to get to the river and not many people that did.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 11:04 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area.
    How is it superfluous? You specifically mentioned that the West part of the city already has enough bridges/access as it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Access is already pretty good across the river in the west end. We need more?
    The fact of the matter is that you were opposed to the Fort Edmonton Bridge, and you're opposed to the Terwillegar bridge because you apparently don't live in in or near the area. Not because the access in that part of the city is sufficient without them, because it's absolutely not as without them your only options to cross the river in the West end are either the Quesnell or the Henday, which are extremely far apart if you're following the course of the river. It would be the equivalent of not having the Capilano, Rundle and and Goldbar bridges in the NE. Are those superfluous?

    The reality is that the bridges work out like this:

    East: Rundle, Goldbar, 50 Street, Capilano Bridge, Hwy 16, NE Henday eventually

    Central: Dawson, Louise McKinney, Low Level, 98 Avenue, Walterdale, Menzes, Groat

    West: Laurier, Quesnell, Fort Edmonton, Terwillegar, SW Henday

    Seems like things are pretty balanced, or will be with the construction of Terwillegar.
    The apparent Edmonton pedestrian bridge equation:

    Build lowest possible cheap *** bridges in east and central and downtown areas that are highly used, highly visible.

    Build very expensive pedestrian bridges in West end in inaccessible, remote, less used areas because well, all the money is in Westend and Riverbend.

    Makes a whole lot of sense.
    The argument could also be flipped to say that the central and east areas have had plentiful bridge access for years, while other administrations have cheaped out, and the west and SW areas did not require access during those years. Now they do require access and it's just coincidentally during a time when city administrators are not interested in building cheap bridges.

    I'm quite sure that if a bridge in the East suddenly needed replacing and was being cost shared 1/3 by each level of govt, it would not be a simple cheap design either.

    I'm getting really tired of this "W/SW vs everybody else" mentality.

  54. #54

    Default

    Alex, I used to hike the Patricia and Wolf Willow ravine years ago. you could spend all day there and not see other people. These are remote areas close to the river and fairly long treks to reach river and with paths that were not so great.

    To say that this was required infers there was a lot of user traffic in the location. This is simply not accurate. Nobody from Patricia ravine would've been able to easily access the site of the bridge without fording some creeks. Nobody could have accessed it from the cliff where the steep steps are now without jumping off a cliff..

    Much of this area accessing from south wasn't even build up until very recently.

    Fort Edmonton bridge was not a user demand location for a bridge. More to the case the commonly heard reaction was "why do we need a bridge there"

    If people are being honest in the discussion they know I'm correct that there was no previous user demand in the area necessitating bridge at location.
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 11:12 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  55. #55
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    Connecting the entire 88km of river valley trails. That is the reason.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area.
    How is it superfluous? You specifically mentioned that the West part of the city already has enough bridges/access as it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Access is already pretty good across the river in the west end. We need more?
    The fact of the matter is that you were opposed to the Fort Edmonton Bridge, and you're opposed to the Terwillegar bridge because you apparently don't live in in or near the area. Not because the access in that part of the city is sufficient without them, because it's absolutely not as without them your only options to cross the river in the West end are either the Quesnell or the Henday, which are extremely far apart if you're following the course of the river. It would be the equivalent of not having the Capilano, Rundle and and Goldbar bridges in the NE. Are those superfluous?

    The reality is that the bridges work out like this:

    East: Rundle, Goldbar, 50 Street, Capilano Bridge, Hwy 16, NE Henday eventually

    Central: Dawson, Louise McKinney, Low Level, 98 Avenue, Walterdale, Menzes, Groat

    West: Laurier, Quesnell, Fort Edmonton, Terwillegar, SW Henday

    Seems like things are pretty balanced, or will be with the construction of Terwillegar.
    The apparent Edmonton pedestrian bridge equation:

    Build lowest possible cheap *** bridges in east and central and downtown areas that are highly used, highly visible.

    Build very expensive pedestrian bridges in West end in inaccessible, remote, less used areas because well, all the money is in Westend and Riverbend.

    Makes a whole lot of sense.
    Didn't think the replacement for the louise mckinnely bridge or walterdale bridge looked that cheap.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Connecting the entire 88km of river valley trails. That is the reason.
    Fair point. tbh I've been waiting for that my whole life and has been talked about since the 70's.

    I'd like to see Devon to Fort Saskatchewan, I really would, in my lifetime. But arguably the expenditure involved in these bridges is setting back the funded timeframe for that to happen. I don't necessarily see these projects as being absolutely necessary to the design of that, or that they needed to be signature bridges.

    It is somewhat frustrating how long these projects take. When one anticipates such a project and hears about it as a 10 year old its disappointing I'll be a senior citizen or pushing up daisies before it ever comes to fruition.

    Edmonton really takes far too long ( a lifetime) for some of these types of visions. Too bad. The original capital region trail system started in the 70's expanded like crazy and left one believing that the vision would be realized much sooner. Man, its been 40yrs.

    sigh
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 11:24 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    This is superfluous to my point. How many bridges are required to create access to the rivervalley in this area.
    How is it superfluous? You specifically mentioned that the West part of the city already has enough bridges/access as it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Access is already pretty good across the river in the west end. We need more?
    The fact of the matter is that you were opposed to the Fort Edmonton Bridge, and you're opposed to the Terwillegar bridge because you apparently don't live in in or near the area. Not because the access in that part of the city is sufficient without them, because it's absolutely not as without them your only options to cross the river in the West end are either the Quesnell or the Henday, which are extremely far apart if you're following the course of the river. It would be the equivalent of not having the Capilano, Rundle and and Goldbar bridges in the NE. Are those superfluous?

    The reality is that the bridges work out like this:

    East: Rundle, Goldbar, 50 Street, Capilano Bridge, Hwy 16, NE Henday eventually

    Central: Dawson, Louise McKinney, Low Level, 98 Avenue, Walterdale, Menzes, Groat

    West: Laurier, Quesnell, Fort Edmonton, Terwillegar, SW Henday

    Seems like things are pretty balanced, or will be with the construction of Terwillegar.
    The apparent Edmonton pedestrian bridge equation:

    Build lowest possible cheap *** bridges in east and central and downtown areas that are highly used, highly visible.

    Build very expensive pedestrian bridges in West end in inaccessible, remote, less used areas because well, all the money is in Westend and Riverbend.

    Makes a whole lot of sense.
    Didn't think the replacement for the louise mckinnely bridge or walterdale bridge looked that cheap.
    One of these is an LRT bridge and without which there would be no new bridge. The other is to replace an archaic bridge structure that has long since outlived its design usefulness.

    Neither of these are pedestrian only bridges and neither expressly built for that purpose.

    nice try.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  59. #59

    Default

    Sorry - how would one get from devon to fort sask without these footbridges?

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,344

    Default

    I am fine with this new footbridge.. in fact think it's great to be tying more parts of the valley trail system togther.. and the comparative "cheapness" (whatever that means) of the other bridges doesn't bother me one bit.

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Sorry - how would one get from devon to fort sask without these footbridges?
    By the trail sticking to one side of the river or the other once in awhile? How many crossings is required?

    Maybe get off your lazy *** and cycle a few extra kms around a riverbend.

    yes, you deserve that comment.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  62. #62

    Default

    There is no trail. Its becoming more and more obvious that you have no knowledge of the area...

    There is no place for a multiuse trail ... bridges are needed.... look at the map ffs.

    If you have nothing further to add, please stop... You're only showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge of this area...
    Last edited by Medwards; 19-07-2013 at 11:31 AM.

  63. #63

    Default

    IMHO, I find that many of the people crossing the existing Fort Edmonton foot bridge simply walk to the other side, turn around and walk back. Sort of a very elongated view point.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    the Terwillegar Park bridge will allow people from the other side of the river to access the off-leash area without having to drive 20+ minutes around and park at Terwillegar Park. So that's something.

  65. #65

    Default

    Yes, there's lots of that EPRT (people out and enjoying the viewpoints and parks...) - but they will be able to extend their walk into terwillegar with the new footbridge...

  66. #66

    Default

    Here is an out of the box idea that solves two problems.

    We have the old Walterdale Bridge that we want to get rid of and we need a new bridge a few miles upstream...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There is no trail. Its becoming more and more obvious that you have no knowledge of the area...

    There is no place for a multiuse trail ... bridges are needed.... look at the map ffs.

    If you have nothing further to add, please stop... You're only showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge of this area...
    I'm very familiar with the Fort Edmonton bridge area. Less so with Terwillegar.


    So they can't build a trail around the river bends instead of multiple expensive bridge crossings? They have to build the connecting trails anyway.

    Are you really being this obtuse?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  68. #68

    Default

    Take a look at the map, tell me where you would put the trail. Note that between Fort Edmonton Foot Bridge and Terwillegar Park is where the river valley bank has taken houses down in to the river.... There's no place for a multiuse trail on the southside of the river here.

    Are you really being this obtuse?

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Here is an out of the box idea that solves two problems.

    We have the old Walterdale Bridge that we want to get rid of and we need a new bridge a few miles upstream...
    Now you started something.

    No, they don't want just any castoff bridge, its gotta be signature stuff. Build a Calatrava type masterpiece where nobody is..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Here is an out of the box idea that solves two problems.

    We have the old Walterdale Bridge that we want to get rid of and we need a new bridge a few miles upstream...
    You mean the walterdale bridge that is being replaced because its at the end of its serviceable life? What do you suggest to do with it?

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Build a Calatrava type masterpiece where nobody is..
    You've just admitted you are not familar with Terwillegar park, but yet this comment keeps occurring...

    obtuse much? Arguing for the sake of arguing?

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Take a look at the map, tell me where you would put the trail. Note that between Fort Edmonton Foot Bridge and Terwillegar Park is where the river valley bank has taken houses down in to the river.... There's no place for a multiuse trail on the southside of the river here.

    Are you really being this obtuse?
    Theres two banks of a rivervalley. Are you telling me BOTH banks are unnavigable and impossible to traverse? Why not just stick the trail to the one side of the river? Or deviate from river valley for short section. How many more crossings before we reach Devon in 2115?
    Last edited by Replacement; 19-07-2013 at 11:48 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  73. #73
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    haha I'm sure they can just pick up the bridge and ram it in downstream. Not like there are complex engineering issues they'd run into with that...

  74. #74

    Default

    There is already a bike path on the top of the bank on the south side of the river. Some parts are not well marked and poorly connected but Replacement's comments are a worthy idea. I wonder if this was discussed by Council to improve the bike route.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Build a Calatrava type masterpiece where nobody is..
    You've just admitted you are not familar with Terwillegar park, but yet this comment keeps occurring...

    obtuse much? Arguing for the sake of arguing?
    Just responding in kind. You seem to model the behavior well.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    There is already a bike path on the top of the bank on the south side of the river. Some parts are not well marked and poorly connected but Replacement's comments are a worthy idea. I wonder if this was discussed by Council to improve the bike route.
    I've yet to see presentation of how either the Fort Bridge, or Terwillegar crossing are essential to the Devon plan and that these crossings HAVE to take place. If anything its more a case of one crossing leading to the need for the other. Seemingly for the sake of it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    haha I'm sure they can just pick up the bridge and ram it in downstream. Not like there are complex engineering issues they'd run into with that...
    Yes you can


    I was not suggesting moving the complete spans of the bridge in one piece. Just disassembling it and reconstructing it. It was just a thought but it might not be economical.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    There is already a bike path on the top of the bank on the south side of the river. Some parts are not well marked and poorly connected but Replacement's comments are a worthy idea. I wonder if this was discussed by Council to improve the bike route.
    I've yet to see presentation of how either the Fort Bridge, or Terwillegar crossing are essential to the Devon plan and that these crossings HAVE to take place. If anything its more a case of one crossing leading to the need for the other. Seemingly for the sake of it.
    http://www.rivervalley.ab.ca/wp-cont...-2012-2016.pdf

    Pay no attention to the fact that the northeast will get 2-3 new foot bridges... that will go against Replacement illogical rant
    Last edited by Medwards; 19-07-2013 at 12:28 PM.

  79. #79
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Here is an out of the box idea that solves two problems.

    We have the old Walterdale Bridge that we want to get rid of and we need a new bridge a few miles upstream...
    Bad idea, it would cost a lot of money and in the end you are still stuck with an old fugly bridge.

  80. #80

  81. #81

    Default

    ^He has facts! Watch out! This thread has been a riot to read btw!
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  82. #82
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    O Kerry....
    Well the footbridge has nothing to do with potholes so why would we spend money on it? It must be a waste of money if it has nothing to do with motorists and potholes

  83. #83

    Default

    I don't think anyone is actually against this footbridge. I think there's some vitriol at the fact it will be a signature design in an area with almost no vantage points. Add in some extra furor since the city now seems to be balking at the premium to upgrade Yellowhead - a road traveled by tens of thousands every day - but showing a willingness to spend a premium for something that won't be used by tens of thousands per year, if even per decade.

    IMHO it's more of a timing problem than anything.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  84. #84
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,108

    Default

    ^ SW > north end!
    “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

  85. #85

    Default

    by voting against, diotte just lost every vote from a sane person living in sw edmonton. Way to go team diotte. what's his next weasel move?

  86. #86

    Default

    What sane person would have voted for him in the first place?

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stunkermann View Post
    by voting against, diotte just lost every vote from a sane person living in sw edmonton. Way to go team diotte. what's his next weasel move?
    Are you sure? Generalizing much? I could in a similar way say something like "I thought everyone in the SW wants road bridges not foot bridges" (i.e. isn't that where all the auto everywhere suburban sprawlers live?).

  88. #88

    Default

    ^Yeah but even though the dudes there have a fancy car and a jacked up douche truck, they also want super nice trails for their kept women to jog/walk the dogs/push baby strollers.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  89. #89
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    If one were to make sweeping generalizations about certain other neighborhoods in the city, they would be attacked mercilessly. It's fine when the attack is against the SW though, apparently.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    If one were to make sweeping generalizations about certain other neighborhoods in the city, they would be attacked mercilessly. It's fine when the attack is against the SW though, apparently.
    I do get attacked mercilessly. (tongue in cheek with this, just using your words)

    Possibly I occasionally deserve it.

    We all have some odd opinions. At least I engage in conversation and discussion and some better than others.

    A driveby post "suggesting Kerry is a weasel and inferring anybody sane would not vote for him " adds nothing to any conversation ever, anytime.

    Its pure noise. albeit I could raise this better in a different thread..


    On a more serious note its not unusual at all for wealthy wards to get better candidates, better representation, more accountability, and better results and better spending and infrastructure. This seems to occur commonly.

    I don't think that's a generalization as much as a political based dynamic.
    Last edited by Replacement; 20-07-2013 at 05:04 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    In other news, I was actually down at Terwillegar Park today. I drove a crossover. My little middle-class family took a walk with our relatively tiny dog down to the river...where we saw other people our age with their dogs. In the parking lot there were a few trucks, although I believe I only saw one that was lifted. There were probably as many hybrid and fuel-economy conscious vehicles in the lot as trucks.

    Mud, Sweat & Gears was on site doing bike tune-ups, and the parking lot was pretty much full. LOTS of people walking dogs and biking around the park. Families, singles, couples. Just regular ol' Edmontonians. I didn't take a poll, but I'm sure that if I had, I would have found that the park was full of people from many different areas of the city, not just the SW (although considering the park location, it would be safe to assume the majority would be from nearby).

    I saw where the bridge will be, according to the google map above, and I'm confident that it will be well used throughout the year. During the Sourdough Raft Race it will act as a defacto starting line, and I'm sure it will be lined with spectators, just as it will be during the Edmonton-Calgary rowing race.

    First hand reporting from a SW resident on-site. So I guess it probably will count for nothing at all.

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    In other news, I was actually down at Terwillegar Park today. I drove a crossover. My little middle-class family took a walk with our relatively tiny dog down to the river...where we saw other people our age with their dogs. In the parking lot there were a few trucks, although I believe I only saw one that was lifted. There were probably as many hybrid and fuel-economy conscious vehicles in the lot as trucks.

    Mud, Sweat & Gears was on site doing bike tune-ups, and the parking lot was pretty much full. LOTS of people walking dogs and biking around the park. Families, singles, couples. Just regular ol' Edmontonians. I didn't take a poll, but I'm sure that if I had, I would have found that the park was full of people from many different areas of the city, not just the SW (although considering the park location, it would be safe to assume the majority would be from nearby).

    I saw where the bridge will be, according to the google map above, and I'm confident that it will be well used throughout the year. During the Sourdough Raft Race it will act as a defacto starting line, and I'm sure it will be lined with spectators, just as it will be during the Edmonton-Calgary rowing race.

    First hand reporting from a SW resident on-site. So I guess it probably will count for nothing at all.
    No, it does count for something and thanks for it.


    Terwillegar park afaik has been home to some trail riders for some time. I'm not much of a root hopper, more of a maintained trails kind of guy and I admit to preferring well maintained trails. I do a fair amount of cycling and easily 150K/week (used to be twice that and routine 100K trips) but I've never ever been a rock hopper. I'm terrible trying to effect control once things start to go south. Thus I'm better on better surfaces.

    I've fully admitted my ignorance of Terwillegar park usage. So I admit that I am probably wrong on that one.

    I'm fairly regular at Fort Edmonton bridge and have never seen more than 20 people on the bridge. Conversely I don't know that I've ever seen less than 50 on bridge leading to Louise McKinney, or say the Hawrelak park bridge which is an ideal and busy primo location. Ditto the Menzies pedestrian bridge.

    Medwards was trying to tell me that Fort Edmonton bridge was as busy as any in the city and a suggestion that is flat out ridiculous.

    That said things can change. For instance Jackie Parker park used to have sparse attendance aside from the dog run. Now that they put in the spray park, kids play area its a sort of family mecca in the area with density that wouldn't even have been thought of a few years ago.

    In this vein too some of my points may not be so good in this thread. Build it and they will come does have its points, but nobody raised that point.

    Still, as mentioned I'd like to see the Devon to Fort Saskatchewan goal completed. This has been in the plans since the 70's.

    my gawd, Thousands of kms of roads were paved in this province in a very short period of time with the advent of the affordable automobile. How long can it possibly take to further a tiny, narrow ribbon of asphalt that conforms to whatever geography is in front of it.

    I still wonder a bit about the planning. City would have done best to maintain a ribbon on south cliff of North Sask bordering Terwillegar park(and thus taking shortest route between two points instead of having the trail cross the river there twice. Too bad the city allowed residential zoning there instead of keeping an easement for the long thought of Devon connection.

    Something I'm confused about as well from the maps is that theres going to be two bridges at Terwillegar, not one..

    The bridge solutions appear to be a lot more expensive then the city having foresight to actually design a route before residential encroachment limited options.
    Last edited by Replacement; 20-07-2013 at 06:31 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  93. #93
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    I agree with pretty much everything you just said, Replacement.

    I just don't see the big deal about spending $8 million for a $24 million bridge. For contrast, and to appease the pothole crowd, the following except is from a Metro News story dated April 13th, 2013

    On Wednesday, Edmonton city council approved $9 million for the city’s pothole repair program – in addition to $8 million and change council approved a few weeks back.
    - http://metronews.ca/voices/krause-en...0000-potholes/ on April 13th

    That clip alone should be proof enough that the city is not spiting another area of the city to bolster the SW (the area with probably the least potholed roads, simply due to age). So I find it hard to be sympathetic to the crowd talking about how a bridge which will last many decades is a waste of money.

  94. #94

    Default

    I'm not sure why you are still confused Replacement. Yes, there will be a second bridge built (later) on the other side of Terwillegar. It will provide a further vital connection to the entire system.
    The idea of the multi-use trail in the river valley from devon to fort sask is to actually go through the river valley. Not up and around through this neighbourhood then that.... kinda defeats the purpose of this whole thing. The bridges are built in strategic places to allow great connectivity to the whole trail system.
    The 24M $ cost - Edmonton only pays 1/3. The cost includes paved trail to connect right up with the trail that goes under the Henday.
    As far as the popularity of the fort Edmonton footbridge - when I ride it (sometimes several times a week) there is always a few handfuls of people on or around it, more on the weekends. The bridge and area is still fairly new, and people are still finding out about it.

    Terwillegar Park is very popular and very expansive area. This new footbridge will connect the west end with easy biking and walking access to this area, it will also open up more park space on the north side of the river (below the golf course). The new footbridge will encourage people to explore more of the river valley from terwillegar including the fort Edmonton footbridge and further...without having to return up through suburbia.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm not sure why you are still confused Replacement. Yes, there will be a second bridge built (later) on the other side of Terwillegar. It will provide a further vital connection to the entire system.
    The idea of the multi-use trail in the river valley from devon to fort sask is to actually go through the river valley. Not up and around through this neighbourhood then that.... kinda defeats the purpose of this whole thing. The bridges are built in strategic places to allow great connectivity to the whole trail system.
    The 24M $ cost - Edmonton only pays 1/3. The cost includes paved trail to connect right up with the trail that goes under the Henday.
    As far as the popularity of the fort Edmonton footbridge - when I ride it (sometimes several times a week) there is always a few handfuls of people on or around it, more on the weekends. The bridge and area is still fairly new, and people are still finding out about it.

    Terwillegar Park is very popular and very expansive area. This new footbridge will connect the west end with easy biking and walking access to this area, it will also open up more park space on the north side of the river (below the golf course). The new footbridge will encourage people to explore more of the river valley from terwillegar including the fort Edmonton footbridge and further...without having to return up through suburbia.


    You read my post though. It was conceivable that the city could have properly planned and maintained a corridor through the area adjacent to Terwillegar park that was undeveloped in the 70's. The bolded statement is completely false and you would apparently know this through being an avid user of the current trail system. In fact much of the river valley bike system has the trails going from river valley to top of banks and also through neighborhoods at Rossdale and Riverdale. There really is nothing unusual about my suggestion that the bike trail should deviate briefly from river valley and cut through above Terwillegar park and thereby avoiding detour and needing multiple bridges at that location. Again this happens at several locations in the current river valley bike trail system. Not sure why you are trying to state this "defeats the purpose" or is different in anyway.

    I don't think you can discount either that construction costs at that hard to access region, and for two bridges is going to be considerable.

    Plus I don't like how this is proceeding. The city is being fairly disingenuous here announcing one bridge, and approving one bridge at Terwillegar when two is actually required (but unpalatable to announce both in this spending year) Which begs the immediate question is how long before the other bridge and how long before this decades long project even leaves the city of Edmonton on its way to Devon.

    Due to really poor planning the costs of this route to Devon is much more than it needs to be and from funding perspective is possibly holding up the project.

    Lets hope the rest of the route to Devon is planned more sensibly. I really can't believe anybody would seriously think crossing the river twice at Terwillegar is the brightest way to go. This could've been avoided.
    Last edited by Replacement; 20-07-2013 at 11:57 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You read my post though. It was conceivable that the city could have properly planned and maintained a corridor through the area adjacent to Terwillegar park that was undeveloped in the 70's.
    That was 40 years ago, and would eliminate the connections from the west end. Not such a good idea, when you also consider that idea of these multi-use trail system is to go "through" the river valley, and connect as many communities and as many river valley parks and areas...

    The bolded statement is completely false and you would apparently know this through being an avid user of the current trail system. In fact much of the river valley bike system has the trails going from river valley to top of banks and also through neighborhoods at Rossdale and Riverdale.
    The trails remain in the river valley... I'm not sure what trail you refer to that goes to the top of the bank, there are many, but the main trails always remains... in the valley. Rossdale and Riverdale are in the valley, and have been around a lot longer than this river valley multi-use plan....

    There really is nothing unusual about my suggestion that the bike trail should deviate briefly from river valley and cut through above Terwillegar park and thereby avoiding detour and needing multiple bridges at that location. Again this happens at several locations in the current river valley bike trail system. Not sure why you are trying to state this "defeats the purpose" or is different in anyway.
    Again, I disagree. It's very unusual for the river valley multiuse trail to come out of the river valley to take a detour. The idea of the paths are to open up the river valley for all to use and access, not a detour around it. Defeats the purpose of the path and the mission of the trail system

    I don't think you can discount either that construction costs at that hard to access region, and for two bridges is going to be considerable.
    They had no problems building the first bridge (the fort edmonton one). They can use the same access.

    Plus I don't like how this is proceeding. The city is being fairly disingenuous here announcing one bridge, and approving one bridge at Terwillegar when two is actually required.
    this is the most laughable part of any of your posts in this thread. No one is being disingenuous - the plans are clearly laid out on the website I previously referenced. Perhaps it might boggle your mind a bit - but the information has been out there for years... including the long range funding plans.
    This plan is planned out not only by the city of Edmonton, but its regional partners, and is funded by the provincial and federal governments.


    (but unpalatable to announce both in this spending year) Which begs the immediate question is how long before the other bridge and how long before this decades long project even leaves the city of Edmonton on its way to Devon.

    Due to really poor planning the costs of this route to Devon is much more than it needs to be and from funding perspective is possibly holding up the project.

    Lets hope the rest of the route to Devon is planned more sensibly. I really can't believe anybody would seriously think crossing the river twice at Terwillegar is the brightest way to go. This could've been avoided.
    You better review the plans ... on the website I've linked. There are several more planned river crossings on the way to devon, and yes, also on the way to fort saskatchewan. You would know this if you spent any time researching this, or even having a brief look at the links I've included above.
    Perhaps spend a bit of time researching something before precluding it as a failed planning or the other crock-o-***** you bring.

  97. #97

    Default

    Lets also not forget that if this bridge isn't completed in the 2012-2016 time frame, we lose money the federal and provincial governments have ear marked for this project.

  98. #98

    Default

    Government of AlbertaIn 2007, the Government of Alberta allocated $50 million to the River Valley Alliance over nine years (2008-16) toward the realization of phase 1 of the RVA. These funds have been used to support operations, to complete projects developed by Spring 2012, and to help raise matching funds for the 2012-16 capital project.

    Government of Canada In November 2012, the Government of Canada gave approval in principle for $30 million to be allocated to the River Valley Alliance from the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component. These funds enabled the start-up of the implementation of the 2012-16 capital project.

  99. #99

    Default

    Medwards, travel east from Louise McKinney bridge sometime. On one side of the bridge (north) the trail goes through riverdale, it then goes through dawson park, at the end of which it takes a big climb and eventually ends up with a jaunt on Ada blvd.

    Go east on south side of river and you twice have extreme climbs onto clifftop, traversing neighborhood, school borders and then going back down into river valley again.

    It is pretty much the topography of this river valley and steep unstable banks of clay the necessitates the trail move out of the river valley at several junctures. This is of course nothing new and has been the state of the river valley trails in effect going where it can go since first developed. You now stating that the trail MUST be contained in the river valley contiguously at all junctures is fictitious and an unnecessary impediment.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  100. #100

    Default

    having traveled this route you suggest many times... I know one doesn't need to go up to ada blvd, one could simply take the lower path, go under the capilano bridge, and continue to the ...(gasp) goldbar footbridge... where one could continue to ride in the river valley till one gets to the ...(gasp) 1st Rundle Park footbridge....where one could continue further up northeast to the current trail terminus below clareview/144 avenue, or instead going up to clareview, one could take the other rundle park footbridge (gasp) to the strathcona science park... gasp.

    One could take the foot bridge at Louise McKinney to the southside, then head east, and follow the river in the river valley all the way to gold bar park...
    Next please - please state more examples. also, in your further response to this thread, could you identify how one accesses Terwillegar Park from the west end if you eliminate these footbridges, without having to trek up a fairly steep hill and travelling 2 kms+ through residential?

    (also - have you bothered looking at the maps I've supplied, the links I've provided... I'm guessing not.. with the statements you're making.)
    Last edited by Medwards; 22-07-2013 at 01:34 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •