Victoria Bridge (Ridout St at Thames River)

[Djeffery]

Pretty sure this bridge replacement was discussed a couple years ago, but obviously not in it's own thread. Anyway, this is supposed to be replaced this year and the city has an online public information meeting on the 27th with details.

https://getinvolved.london.ca/victor...mbMqYZ4KZ4hpWo

[inimrepus]

Was there ever a design shown for this bridge? I remember a couple years ago they were deciding if the city would spend extra money to build a nicer looking bridge there and I thought they decided to.

Found the source for going with a fancier bridge https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-go-as-planned

[GreatTallNorth2]

This is the only image that has been released so far. I think the actual detailed design comes out this next week.

[jammer139]

The discussion about this bridge a couple of years ago was flawed then as it is now. The city council and planning and transportation folks were more interested in the architecture design and keeping the arch then on the functional needs. There is no logic in replacing a 2 lane bridge that is 96 years old in the core of the city with another 2 lane bridge. Ridout is a major north south street that connects the core with the south end of the city. They should have been more interested in the function of a bridge at this location and the long term needs of transportation. The bridge should be 4 lanes wide with appropriate sidewalks and bike lanes. Nobody cares about the arch design and certainly paying millions extra for the arch design is unnecessary. 50 years from now the residents of the city will wonder who the geniuses where who replaced a 2 lane bridge with another 2 lane bridge without proper functionality. A classic example of form trumping function.



https://london.ctvnews.ca/22-million...ates-1.5750336

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by jammer139

The bridge should be 4 lanes wide with appropriate sidewalks and bike lanes. Nobody cares about the arch design and certainly paying millions extra for the arch design is unnecessary.

I agree about the sidewalks and bike lanes, but there would be no sense in making this bridge with 4 driving lanes. There simply isn't space to expand Ridout to be 4 lanes.

As for the bridge design, spending a little bit of money for something that looks good isn't a bad thing. People shouldn't be against infrastructure that looks good and is functional.

[Djeffery]

The one thing I remember from the past discussion on here was when I started to realize that jammer thinks every road project in this city needs to involve making a highway out of it. Ridout is never going to be a wider road than it is now. If the city 50 years from now decides it should be, they are free to decide that then and spend the money. A wider bridge now would just be replaced then anyway, no need for us to put off some other project now to pay for a couple extra lanes that aren't needed here.

[jammer139]

Ridout is easily widen to 4 lanes in the future. Many examples of road widening in the past. ie: Adelaide, Oxford, Commissioners come to mind in recent decades.


I would not be surprised to see numerous high rises built along Ridout south of the river in the next 50 years. The future will be very different then the past. Just because some old homes are sitting there now doesn't mean they are not a bulldozer and a few days away from being history in the future. Here today gone tomorrow.

Originally Posted by inimrepus

I agree about the sidewalks and bike lanes, but there would be no sense in making this bridge with 4 driving lanes. There simply isn't space to expand Ridout to be 4 lanes.

As for the bridge design, spending a little bit of money for something that looks good isn't a bad thing. People shouldn't be against infrastructure that looks good and is functional.

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by jammer139

Ridout is easily widen to 4 lanes in the future.

Widening Ridout to 4 lanes would mean tearing down dozens of houses, a six story apartment building, a 7 story apartment building, multiple businesses, and possibly a church. Not to mention that it would mean dividing up a neighbourhood. It isn't going to happen.

Also Ridout is close to both Wellington and Wharncliffe. If anything it would make more sense in the future to turn Ridout into less of a through street if traffic becomes that much of an issue.

[jammer139]

More then enough frontage in front of the apartments and funeral home on the stretch north of Grand Ave to widen to 4 lanes. Look at Adelaide between Hamilton Rd and the river. Ridout is already 3 lanes wide now. In the years to come there will be all new high rise towers along this stretch. Redevelopment will happen in this area.

[Djeffery]

Then your great grandkids who are sitting on council at that time can decide to ruin Old South at their peril. Money spent making that bridge wide now would be a waste and take away from something else that needs to be done now.

[That_Chris]

Originally Posted by jammer139

More then enough frontage in front of the apartments and funeral home on the stretch north of Grand Ave to widen to 4 lanes. Look at Adelaide between Hamilton Rd and the river. Ridout is already 3 lanes wide now. In the years to come there will be all new high rise towers along this stretch. Redevelopment will happen in this area.

4 laning rideout would be absolutely ridiculous, unnecessary, and horrific for the area. Taking steps to give that street separated bike lanes would be a massive gain though.

[haljackey]

Some stats about the new bridge

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...like-1.6336669

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by That_Chris

4 laning rideout would be absolutely ridiculous, unnecessary, and horrific for the area. Taking steps to give that street separated bike lanes would be a massive gain though.

Why does everyone here hate improving roads, but love sitting in traffic for hours, wasting gas and driving up our air pollution? I get people want alternatives, but unless 30,000 people in London decide to sell their cars and use public transit, it will never happen.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by tyeman200

Why does everyone here hate improving roads, but love sitting in traffic for hours, wasting gas and driving up our air pollution? I get people want alternatives, but unless 30,000 people in London decide to sell their cars and use public transit, it will never happen.

Because we also don't want every decent looking area of the city to look like Oxford or Wonderland. Wellington with BRT and an improved Wharncliffe will be fine, we don't need a widened Ridout as well.

[That_Chris]

Originally Posted by tyeman200

Why does everyone here hate improving roads, but love sitting in traffic for hours, wasting gas and driving up our air pollution? I get people want alternatives, but unless 30,000 people in London decide to sell their cars and use public transit, it will never happen.

Because a 4 lane ridout wouldn't be an improvement? Because the only thing it would accomplish is hollowing out another residential area of the city, degrading the core and fuelling more suburban expansion that drives the traffic you're so concerned about?

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Because we also don't want every decent looking area of the city to look like Oxford or Wonderland. Wellington with BRT and an improved Wharncliffe will be fine, we don't need a widened Ridout as well.

I get it, but again seems like everyone here wants to do nothing with roads anymore, and just add transportation like it will do anything. You need to expand roads alongside adding new transportation, cars will always be the #1 option for people for many, many lifetimes.

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by That_Chris

Because a 4 lane ridout wouldn't be an improvement? Because the only thing it would accomplish is hollowing out another residential area of the city, degrading the core and fuelling more suburban expansion that drives the traffic you're so concerned about?

Well wasn't talking about Ridout specifically, there are tons of other projects out there that we can improve on.

[ssiguy]

I'm confused.

Why are people concerned about this creating more traffic when it is still only going be be one lane in each direction?

Also why does half of the bridge have walking/cycling of 4.0 meters buyt the other side considered "shared" but still with 4.0 meters?

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I'm confused.

Why are people concerned about this creating more traffic when it is still only going be be one lane in each direction?

Also why does half of the bridge have walking/cycling of 4.0 meters buyt the other side considered "shared" but still with 4.0 meters?

The shared side is sidewalk and bikes can go both ways, mainly because the park is on that side. The other side is a separate sidewalk and a northbound bike lane.

[jammer139]

Project will build a temporary pedestrian bridge to the west side during the construction to allow folks to cross. Will go thru the Thames park tennis courts which will be removed and rebuilt after construction is completed.