Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Finally someone hits the home run on this and sees it for what it really is.
a 25 million over payment that Drue Farell most likely has an off shore account because of it. JMO and I can have that opinion as a taxpayer to question this witch and her reasons for multiple deals with contracts and the city.
As for the Canadian Forces, God bless them and they should have a structure in Calgary built in their name. That is intended to be in their honor and not some u turn that Farrel and her other bandits name after the fact.

If city council wants to convince Calgarians that this bridge is named in honor of the Canadian Forces and was from the beginning have the balls to paint the beams camouflaged.

As a taxpayer, what do you think about the use of your money to build and support interchanges on the perimeter of the city that many Calgarians will rarely, if ever, use?

I don't see why inner-city residents aren't allowed to have infrastructure upgrades as well, and at fractions of the cost as to what other infrastrcuture is costing this city on a yearly basis just to support the outward development of our municipal boundaries.

[Bill Bumface]

Stay Golden, your post is so 2010. Us pro-bridgers already won the debate

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Stay Golden, your post is so 2010. Us pro-bridgers already won the debate

I hope they rename the bridge "The Druh Farell Peach Bridge", just to tick people like Golden and Captain Crunch off more.

And I can't stand Druh.

[Bunk]

Contrary to popular belief, the bridge was not conceived of, nor driven by Druh Farrell. It was the former General Manager of Transportation. Farrell supported its construction, and it is within her ward, but a majority of Council including Bronconnier voted in favour of it.

Just FYI

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Finally someone hits the home run on this and sees it for what it really is.
a 25 million over payment that Drue Farell most likely has an off shore account because of it. JMO and I can have that opinion as a taxpayer to question this witch and her reasons for multiple deals with contracts and the city.
As for the Canadian Forces, God bless them and they should have a structure in Calgary built in their name. That is intended to be in their honor and not some u turn that Farrel and her other bandits name after the fact.

If city council wants to convince Calgarians that this bridge is named in honor of the Canadian Forces and was from the beginning have the balls to paint the beams camouflaged.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Stay Golden, your post is so 2010. Us pro-bridgers already won the debate

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I hope they rename the bridge "The Druh Farell Peach Bridge", just to tick people like Golden and Captain Crunch off more.

And I can't stand Druh.

What about Druh Farell's Peach Bridge?

[SebC]

With all the mystery surrounding this bridge, I suggest we start referring to the staging area as Area 51.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Contrary to popular belief, the bridge was not conceived of, nor driven by Druh Farrell. It was the former General Manager of Transportation. Farrell supported its construction, and it is within her ward, but a majority of Council including Bronconnier voted in favour of it.

Just FYI

Hey, he said it was his OPINION. Facts and truth shouldn't get in the way of a man's opinion.

Opinions are like bum holes. Everyone has them but most of them are %$#&ty.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I hope they rename the bridge "The Druh Farell Peach Bridge", just to tick people like Golden and Captain Crunch off more.

And I can't stand Druh.

I've been campaigning that the Bow River Flow should be renamed Druh Farrell Day, but so far it's failed to catch on.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I've been campaigning that the Bow River Flow should be renamed Druh Farrell Day, but so far it's failed to catch on.

Now if you want to hate on Druh that is a good reason to do so. It's not fair to pin the bridge solely on her.

A bridge was definately needed ... maybe we don't need a $25m bridge that looks like it fell from the top of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, but a bridge was necessary. However that $25m is small potatoes compared to the cost of infrastructure so tons of Calgary citizens can sprawl all over the place and pretend we live in a small, 1/4mil sized city.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I've been campaigning that the Bow River Flow should be renamed Druh Farrell Day, but so far it's failed to catch on.

I was under the impression that the Bow River Flow was started by some of the local community groups and some other organizations (Arusha Centre). Druh Farrell simply supported it (as most alderman would support festivals and events in their own wards).

I may not agree with everything she does and stands for (the fluoride thing for example) but she really seems to get a lot of crap for things that she didn't solely champion.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Now if you want to hate on Druh that is a good reason to do so. It's not fair to pin the bridge solely on her.

A bridge was definately needed ... maybe we don't need a $25m bridge that looks like it fell from the top of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, but a bridge was necessary. However that $25m is small potatoes compared to the cost of infrastructure so tons of Calgary citizens can sprawl all over the place and pretend we live in a small, 1/4mil sized city.

That's funny... I pretty much think the opposite of everything you said.

- It's not fair to pick on Druh for the BRF
- The bridge was not really necessary
- It looks great. Sorry that it's not brown concrete!
- $25 mil is not small potatoes, it's $25 fricken million.

All that said, I still like and support this bridge. Maybe it's the traveler in me, but after going to many other cities that have unique buildings and structures, coming home to Calgary is somewhat underwhelming. Say what you* want about 'wasting' money on extravagant pedestrian bridges, but this Calgary taxpayer is just fine with it.

*you refers to anyone. Not necessarily the poster quoted.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by 4X4

All that said, I still like and support this bridge. Maybe it's the traveler in me, but after going to many other cities that have unique buildings and structures, coming home to Calgary is somewhat underwhelming. Say what you* want about 'wasting' money on extravagant pedestrian bridges, but this Calgary taxpayer is just fine with it. .

That's the thing right there.

By itself no one is going to go "Oh let's go to Calgary to see the red bridge!" but when a city gets numerous interesting/ unique buildings and structures it makes that city more of a destination.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I was under the impression that the Bow River Flow was started by some of the local community groups and some other organizations (Arusha Centre). Druh Farrell simply supported it (as most alderman would support festivals and events in their own wards).

I may not agree with everything she does and stands for (the fluoride thing for example) but she really seems to get a lot of crap for things that she didn't solely champion.

Yeah, I actually like her as an alderman (and I like the BRF). I was more commenting on the fact that everything she touches gets polarized because her critics make it about her. Or as Fotze put it, I was being silly.

[Bigtime]

I missed the sarcasm! But you are right on the statement that everything she touches gets polarized by the media and the average joe.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by 4X4

- The bridge was not really necessary
- $25 mil is not small potatoes, it's $25 fricken million.

I'm just going to quickly address these two points.

The bridge perhaps isn't "necessary," however the existing pedestrian crossings in the area are narrow and over capacity. They are narrow enough to create bad interactions between bikes and pedestrians. It's not that the bridge was close to two other pedestrian crossings, it's that there wasn't enough capacity on the other two bridges. When there is capacity issues, we don't complain if the city adds another road lane on an existing road, we wouldn't complain if the city just widened the existing pedestrian bridges, why would we complain if the cheapest option was just to build another bridge 200m to the east?

There's no way to widen the pedestrian crossing under the LRT bridge, without spending exorbitant amounts of money and/or shutting down the LRT line for an extended period of time. The 10th Street bridge would be somewhat difficult to widen as well, it certainly wouldn't be a cheap job. To add the same amount of capacity as the peace bridge, you would have to add 3 metres on to each side. 3 metres would have to be cantilevered, and to do that, you are probably talking about a major renovation of the entire bridge. Would it cost $25 million, I don't know, but probably close to that.

The Peace Bridge has separated bike lanes, and level entrances, so that bike riders can pedal across easily, while leaving plenty of room for pedestrians. The LRT bridge doesn’t really have ramps that allow bikers to just ride up and ride across. The 10th Street Bridge has very narrow sidewalks that hardly allow a person walking a bike to pass a pedestrian, never mind ride around them.

$25 million is a lot of money, but is it really a lot of money for a pedestrian bridge such as this? No, not really. Even the very simplest of bridges wasn’t going to be built for 2, 5, or even 10 million here. And that’s even if you allow piers in the river. Maybe you could argue that the very simplest of bridges could have been built for $15 million, but I don’t think you want to spend ZERO money on making the bridge look good. I don’t think it’s really reasonable to think a bridge could have been built for less than $18-20 million, and I’d gladly spend a few extra million to make it a great looking bridge. Now, all may not like that looks of the bridge, but having seen the plans, I can tell you that the design quality is second to none. Personally, I think the bridge looks great.

I do suspect that the bridge will be slightly overbudget, say total of $30 million, MAX.

[username]

Well I don't agree that the bridge was actually needed I do agree that it's going to be nice to have. I use the pathways all the time for running and yes bikers do get in the way however it's not the end of the world.

I am totally in favour of this bridge and looking forward to it's completion.

[burn_this_city]

Only 66% off the original $18M. Hopefully once the refurb is finished it lasts a long time.

[The Goon]

I understand that the paint was stripped because it (the paint) was only good to temperatures as low as -12 C.

[I_am_Beast]

Originally Posted by The Goon

I understand that the paint was stripped because it (the paint) was only good to temperatures as low as -12 C.

Hopefully not the metal, we hit -30 and the bridge contracts falling into the river....