Edmonton Roads - Page 27

kcantor · #**521** Posted **Aug 26, 2019, 10:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaws

Must mean pristine from a structural standpoint. They mention the rust in the next paragraph.

nope, it's not structurally pristine either. further on in the article the city's director of bridges only went so far as to say that "the city is confident in the bridge’s condition, saying that even though it might not be the prettiest thing to look at, it’s in good shape." that description is far from pristine. and while it's hard to say whether that word was used incorrectly by the city's director of lifecycle management or by the article's author, the comments on rust weren't subsequent comments from either of them, they were from the executive director of the edmonton heritage council.

240glt · #**522** Posted **Aug 27, 2019, 12:50 AM**

Edmonton is notorious for corruption and incompetence. Thank goodness it's just (hopefully) incompetence that’s resulted in the sad state of the city’s infrastructure, as we’ve seen in other major cities, decay due to corruption has far graver consequences.

Hopefully the Dawson rehabilitation tracks towards the end of their estimated timeline so that we can be well & gone out of here before that starts

EdmTrekker · #**523** Posted **Aug 27, 2019, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Edmonton is notorious for corruption and incompetence. Thank goodness it's just (hopefully) incompetence that’s resulted in the sad state of the city’s infrastructure, as we’ve seen in other major cities, decay due to corruption has far graver consequences.

Hopefully the Dawson rehabilitation tracks towards the end of their estimated timeline so that we can be well & gone out of here before that starts

Wow!. Maybe you could share where other than the what happened at UofA in Maintenance more than a decade ago. Is it the private sector you refer to? The City?

DKaz · #**524** Posted **Aug 27, 2019, 3:39 PM**

Wasn't Dawson Bridge just rehabilitated 9 years ago? I think most of us would consider Low Level Bridges a higher priority.

SHOFEAR · #**525** Posted **Aug 27, 2019, 4:03 PM**

Expect to see more frequent bridge closures for rehab due to the corrosion caused by the salt the city is using.

240glt · #**526** Posted **Aug 27, 2019, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Wasn't Dawson Bridge just rehabilitated 9 years ago? I think most of us would consider Low Level Bridges a higher priority.

Yes in 2010.

Agreed, Low Level needs attention badly.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**527** Posted **Sep 15, 2019, 11:43 PM**

A section of Hwy 814 between Edmonton and Beaumont is still a 2-way road and needs to be twinned. Any chance that will get done by the COE sooner than later?

Airboy · #**528** Posted **Sep 16, 2019, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

A section of Hwy 814 between Edmonton and Beaumont is still a 2-way road and needs to be twinned. Any chance that will get done by the COE sooner than later?

Still lots of prioity roads, yellowhead from 50 to the river needs another lane.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**529** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 2:25 AM**

Beaumont is now a city, and an increasingly important hub in the metro region. To have it serviced by small country roads, especially from COE itself, is absolute bush league. Yes, by all means, turning the Yellowhead into a freeway must be top priority for road/highway work. But the twinning of Hwy 814 should be bumped up on the priority list.

Hardhatdan · #**530** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

A section of Hwy 814 between Edmonton and Beaumont is still a 2-way road and needs to be twinned. Any chance that will get done by the COE sooner than later?

Why would the COE do it?

EdmTrekker · #**531** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 2:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

Beaumont is now a city, and an increasingly important hub in the metro region. To have it serviced by small country roads, especially from COE itself, is absolute bush league. Yes, by all means, turning the Yellowhead into a freeway must be top priority for road/highway work. But the twinning of Hwy 814 should be bumped up on the priority list.

There is nothing but residential in Beaumont. You call it an “important” hub. It’s no more of a hub than Crawford Plains in Millwoods. No way is that road important to Edmonton ... there are much more pressing issues for Edmonton to address besides squandering Edmonton city tax dollars on Road that goes “nowhere” but to a dinky residential place. Beaumont fought Edmonton in the recent annexations ... they should expect nothing from Edmonton.

DKaz · #**532** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 2:21 PM**

A connection from Beaumont is a regional/provincial matter until Edmonton develops further south. The widening of that road should come from development charges, not taxpayers COE taxpayers.

lubicon · #**533** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

A connection from Beaumont is a regional/provincial matter until Edmonton develops further south. The widening of that road should come from development charges, not taxpayers COE taxpayers.

If the road is within COE limits therefore Edmonton taxpayers cover the cost? It's a City road and COE has pretty much zero incentive to 4 lane it - what would they gain from it?

DKaz · #**534** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

If the road is within COE limits therefore Edmonton taxpayers cover the cost? It's a City road and COE has pretty much zero incentive to 4 lane it - what would they gain from it?

Nothing. COE taxpayers should not pay for it. The only way it'll be widened is when developers builds out that way and the additional residents warrant a four lane road. But with that additional commuter traffic, additional traffic, and lowering of the speed limit, I don't think Beaumont will win.

Designating themselves a city to avoid being annexed by COE but demanding that COE upgrade the road that solely benefits them? Hm...

s211 · #**535** Posted **Sep 17, 2019, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Nothing. COE taxpayers should not pay for it. The only way it'll be widened is when developers builds out that way and the additional residents warrant a four lane road. But with that additional commuter traffic, additional traffic, and lowering of the speed limit, I don't think Beaumont will win.

Designating themselves a city to avoid being annexed by COE but demanding that COE upgrade the road that solely benefits them? Hm...

Not the first time Edmonton's been gamed.

I'm looking at you, Hamlet of Sherwood Park.

DKaz · #**536** Posted **Sep 18, 2019, 1:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Not the first time Edmonton's been gamed.

I'm looking at you, Hamlet of Sherwood Park.

What did Sherwood Park do exactly?

Hardhatdan · #**537** Posted **Sep 18, 2019, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

What did Sherwood Park do exactly?

I think the argument would be, Sherwood Park has maintained it's status as a hamlet, even though it is the size of a city to keep property taxes artificially low by being subsidized by the Country of Strathcona. On top of that the County of Strathcona, by product of having things like the IOL and Suncor refinery even though they are within the ring road, has been "gifted" unproportionate industrial business tax revenues.

s211 · #**538** Posted **Sep 18, 2019, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

I think the argument would be, Sherwood Park has maintained it's status as a hamlet, even though it is the size of a city to keep property taxes artificially low by being subsidized by the Country of Strathcona. On top of that the County of Strathcona, by product of having things like the IOL and Suncor refinery even though they are within the ring road, has been "gifted" unproportionate industrial business tax revenues.

Ding!

kcantor · #**539** Posted **Sep 18, 2019, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

I think the argument would be, Sherwood Park has maintained it's status as a hamlet, even though it is the size of a city to keep property taxes artificially low by being subsidized by the Country of Strathcona. On top of that the County of Strathcona, by product of having things like the IOL and Suncor refinery even though they are within the ring road, has been "gifted" unproportionate industrial business tax revenues.

it might look like that today in hindsight but i'm pretty sure back when the option was there the city intentionally decided not to annex or request annexation of refinery row. at the time the taxes paid on industrial land was quite low and the city didn't want the added liability of having to provide emergency services or having to upgrade to municipal infrastructure standards.

dansk · #**540** Posted **Sep 18, 2019, 3:19 PM**

From a business standpoint, it seems Strathcona County as smartly used their assets to create stability in their boundaries.

One has to question the way they grow hamlets such as Sherwood Park Ardrossan and now Bremner, but what is wrong with how they are handling their tax rates?

I keep seeing us in Edmonton point a jealous finger at something that has long existed before a "ring road" engulfed Strathcona's boundaries.