Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08) - Page 214

240glt · #**4261** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 6:57 PM**

^ On the same topic:

Saskatchewan Drive tunnel nixed by city committee

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.

The plan brought immediate criticism from the Old Strathcona community, which claimed the plan would divide the community in two and bring more high-speed traffic to the area.

But the transportation and public works committee on Tuesday morning endorsed a different option to replace the Walterdale Bridge that does not include a tunnel option.

This plan calls for the Walterdale Bridge to be demolished, and for a new bridge with at least four northbound lanes to be built in its place. The new bridge would connect to existing roadways, and is estimated to cost $65 million.

Brian Latte, city manager of transportation planning, said opposition from the Old Strathcona community contributed to the decision.

“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.

Construction on the Walterdale replacement should start in 2013, if funding can be secured, and will take up to two years to complete.

This will be the first new downtown bridge to be built in Edmonton since the early 1970s.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Sask+tunnel+nixed+city+committee/1473905/story.html

deedub35 · #**4262** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 6:58 PM**

“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.

kcantor · #**4263** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

While catching the sun rising is too early for me, since I live in the neighborhood I took a walk down and caught a couple of shots from both ravines at dusk this evening, a beautiful evening for a walk I might add.

From MacKinnon:

From MacKenzie:

...

anyone want to take a guess as to why all of those buildings are short and stumpy and quit at the same height?

tallisgood · #**4264** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedub35

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.

Amen. Another wasted opportunity to do something really good.

Daveography · #**4265** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

anyone want to take a guess as to why all of those buildings are short and stumpy and quit at the same height?

Because no one wants to build anything taller downtown since we lack full service at the city centre airport?

0773|=\ · #**4266** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 7:46 PM**

How exactly would a tunnel underneath Saskatchewan Drive RUIN walkability and divide a community? Wouldn't it help support it by removing an at-grade barrier? What if the tunnel started as far south as Whyte Ave? If they're doing a detailed design plan, perhaps they should show what a tunnel option would look like for the benefit of any Old Strathcona residents who don't happen to be the best 'visualizers'.

240glt · #**4267** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 8:07 PM**

I always assumed that a tunnel would start south of Whyte.

I honestly don't know what the complaint from the OSBA is about.

Maybe they like the traffic congestion ? I don't know. I guess it makes the area look busy.

I just wish the hairpin would go away, but in reality the real problems start at the bottom of the hill, not at the top.

kcantor · #**4268** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

I always assumed that a tunnel would start south of Whyte.

I honestly don't know what the complaint from the OSBA is about.

Maybe they like the traffic congestion ? I don't know. I guess it makes the area look busy.

I just wish the hairpin would go away, but in reality the real problems start at the bottom of the hill, not at the top.

although some of us believe it does indeed start at the top - right where a new bridge should start regardless of which side of the river you're on.

canucklehead2 · #**4269** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:15 PM**

Here's my two cents...

01-The new Walterdale bridge should be an innovative design that allows for both two-way traffic and LRT... It would be much more cost effective to design a double-decked 6-8 lane bridge with future capabilities to connect to a Gateway Blvd NOW, than in 10-20 years when the planners wake up and realize it will probably be needed...

02-Rice Howard Way will continue to suffer as long as Scotia Place and that nasty parkade exists... While I like the towers themselves the podium is completely anti-human and an eyesore... If renovations refocused the structures uses outwards as much as inwards and kept to it (unlike the Edmonton City Centre mall reno which was largely a failure IMHO) then we could totally have a pedestrian zone worthy of Edmonton.

03-It's still possible for Edmonton to have a taller skyline and a fully-functioning and thriving downtown airport. The majority of downtown isn't directly in the way of the airport glideways, so in theory, the height limit for much of the CBD could be eliminated... Personally I like the idea of a small, tall cluster of towers with a lower-rise portion adjacent... Think London's skyline...

feepa · #**4270** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

03-It's still possible for Edmonton to have a taller skyline and a fully-functioning and thriving downtown airport. The majority of downtown isn't directly in the way of the airport glideways, so in theory, the height limit for much of the CBD could be eliminated... Personally I like the idea of a small, tall cluster of towers with a lower-rise portion adjacent... Think London's skyline...

I believe you are incorrect. APO.

canucklehead2 · #**4271** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:29 PM**

I have a copy of the APO, and most of downtown is located in between the two glide paths for the runways, and not directly in the way so basically the height limit is arbitrary... It's set at 2700' ASL which translates to around 480' from ground level. Other areas east and west of the glide paths have lower limits... I don't remember the technical name of the ring-shaped zone around the airport but it's something like "Airport Vicinity Zone" on the maps that I've seen...

CMD UW · #**4272** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:36 PM**

While the 'Downtown Area' is exlcuded from the Vicinity Protection Regulations, building height is restricted in the 2675 ft ASL. The 'Downtown Area' is the wedge between the approach surfaces for Runways 29 and 34.

tony0911 · #**4273** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ On the same topic:

Saskatchewan Drive tunnel nixed by city committee

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.

The plan brought immediate criticism from the Old Strathcona community, which claimed the plan would divide the community in two and bring more high-speed traffic to the area.

But the transportation and public works committee on Tuesday morning endorsed a different option to replace the Walterdale Bridge that does not include a tunnel option.

This plan calls for the Walterdale Bridge to be demolished, and for a new bridge with at least four northbound lanes to be built in its place. The new bridge would connect to existing roadways, and is estimated to cost $65 million.

Brian Latte, city manager of transportation planning, said opposition from the Old Strathcona community contributed to the decision.

“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.

Construction on the Walterdale replacement should start in 2013, if funding can be secured, and will take up to two years to complete.

This will be the first new downtown bridge to be built in Edmonton since the early 1970s.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Sask+tunnel+nixed+city+committee/1473905/story.html

Typical for the city, why think long term and try to evolve and get better; let's keep the slolem course and hair pin turns because it's more fun for the street racers and way more fun taking the hillbilly trails to get downtown.

People wonder why the city is the way it is...........................

tony0911 · #**4274** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:47 PM**

Actually ......why not sink the 65 million into potholes.....we don't really need another bridge downtown anyways because downtown is never going to expand .....or better yet put it against improving service at the muni that will keep all the losers happy and the city crappy...

canucklehead2 · #**4275** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:47 PM**

Thank you for pulling up the map CMW UW. I only have the massive rolled up version stashed somewhere in a storage locker somewhere... I totally want to get another one and have it framed... The version I have showed two different ringed areas... One closest to the airport restricted buildings to 300' I think, the second to a 400' base plus a 3 degree angle based on the distance from the airport... So technically some areas under the zone could still roughly 480' tall under the blue bubble on the map...

feepa · #**4276** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:54 PM**

^ cough.

rapid_business · #**4277** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:57 PM**

/\ ask CMD to turn around in his office chair and look at the framed copy angled against the wall. It clearly shows the different rings you are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

Because no one wants to build anything taller downtown since we lack full service at the city centre airport?

Very few comments on here every make me actually laugh out loud. This one did.

240glt · #**4278** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 9:58 PM**

Damn, According to that map I can't build the 800' tall black & yellow cinderblock tower that I planned to start next week on the vacant lot across from my house. Down with the Muni!!

0773|=\ · #**4279** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 10:06 PM**

"The Wasp Chimney"

...has a nice ring to it.

Atlguy33 · #**4280** Posted **Apr 7, 2009, 10:06 PM**

My $.02 on the Walterdale replacement plan:

I really think they should have gone with the tunnel. A new bridge is great but only solves half the problem. If they are going to do it, they should go all the way and do it right. As an out-of-towner, I can say from experience that the first time a visitor comes across the hairpin turn, they are like, "WTF??? Whoa, Nelly!"