News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

itom987 said:
The roads themselves were not in bad shape, they should have up-zoned the properties along the entire road to medium density giving the road the traffic it was designed to handle.
Click to expand...
Somehow I don't think that would've been any more popular with the sorts of people inclined to complain about the bike lane.

Anyway, I know this isn't the conclusion you intended for us to draw but that bike lane looks sick.
 
Well, of course it does. Like the city gave a bunch of money to a group of cycling enthusiasts and told them to design the bike path of their dreams.
 
constance_chlore said:
Anyway, I know this isn't the conclusion you intended for us to draw but that bike lane looks sick.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

As someone who grew up and went to school there and played countless sets of tennis on the courts, and drove up and down 132 Ave many times, and has now seen the change, it looks so much better and a significant improvement for the neighbourhoods in many ways.
 
itom987 said:
Well, of course it does. Like the city gave a bunch of money to a group of cycling enthusiasts and told them to design the bike path of their dreams.
Click to expand...
Whatever it was is an awful lot less than what they’re about to give OEG, Again.

Don’t get me wrong, I was all in favour of the original CRL even though some of the repercussions of the details in some of the implementing agreements were/are awful for the City.

The current amendments don’t have near the public need/benefit of the first one and that’s even before the devil in the details become public.
 
TAS said:
If Smith/Dreeshen are really concerned about the swift movement of traffic in YEG, why don't they share their solutions to relieve congestion for motorists on Edmonton's 20 most busy roadways - none of which contain bike lanes I can pretty much guarantee.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if they’re gonna talk like this, now would be a great time for them to pitch in money to widen the entire Henday and the Yellowhead to 6 lanes, convert the QE2 into a collector-express freeway, and maybe even convert 91st Street, Manning, Ray Gibbon and Terwillegar into full freeways 😉
 
yeggator said:
Yeah, if they’re gonna talk like this, now would be a great time for them to pitch in money to widen the entire Henday and the Yellowhead to 6 lanes, convert the QE2 into a collector-express freeway, and maybe even convert 91st Street, Manning, Ray Gibbon and Terwillegar into full freeways 😉
Click to expand...
Smith and the UCP is far better at complaining about problems that don't really exist rather than providing funding to fix real ones.

Their communication is more about distraction and pandering to their rural base who don't really know that much about urban transportation issues.
 
From an invitation to an Alberta Next Town Hall:

“Led by Premier Danielle Smith and a 15 member panel of UCP MLAs, business leaders, academics, and community representatives, this is part of a rigorous Government of Alberta consultation process.

“The goal is to shape Alberta’s future and strengthen our sovereignty within a united Canada. The panel is touring the province to hear how we can better protect ourselves from Ottawa’s attacks. A provincial referendum on some of these ideas is coming in 2026. What’s on that ballot will be informed by your feedback.

“Panelists will raise important ideas for discussion, including the Provincial Police Service, Alberta Pension Plan, tax collection changes, immigration, constitutional reform, and federal transfers and equalization.

“This is not a United Conservative Party event, but we know many of our supporters care deeply about these issues and may want to attend.”
Emphasis added. :(

So… this is a “rigorous consultation” but it’s already predetermined that a “provincial referendum on some of these ideas is coming in 2026”???

And we’re expected to support and agree with this nonsense???
 
kcantor said:
From an invitation to an Alberta Next Town Hall:

“Led by Premier Danielle Smith and a 15 member panel of UCP MLAs, business leaders, academics, and community representatives, this is part of a rigorous Government of Alberta consultation process.

“The goal is to shape Alberta’s future and strengthen our sovereignty within a united Canada. The panel is touring the province to hear how we can better protect ourselves from Ottawa’s attacks. A provincial referendum on some of these ideas is coming in 2026. What’s on that ballot will be informed by your feedback.

“Panelists will raise important ideas for discussion, including the Provincial Police Service, Alberta Pension Plan, tax collection changes, immigration, constitutional reform, and federal transfers and equalization.

“This is not a United Conservative Party event, but we know many of our supporters care deeply about these issues and may want to attend.”
Emphasis added. :(

So… this is a “rigorous consultation” but it’s already predetermined that a “provincial referendum on some of these ideas is coming in 2026”???

And we’re expected to support and agree with this nonsense???
Click to expand...
Write to your MLA - especially if they're with the UCP.
 
MacLac said:
Disgusting!!! "But the wait times at the Sturgeon and Stollery are lower than the Main 4 - so that's ok..."

edmontonjournal.com

'Stressed system': Edmonton has high rate of ER patients leaving without treatment

Warren Thirsk, emergency medicine president of the AMA and an ER doctor at the Royal Alex, thinks it's important to disaggregate numbers.
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com
Click to expand...
Not surprising if for no other reason than they haven't built a new hospital here since the late 1980's in what has been and still is a growing city.

Sadly, the UCP doesn't seem to be in any rush to fix this either.
 
Some inside news.

As we've seen, the province is targeting active transportation with threats to remove bike lanes and limit cities from building more. Drivers are taking a hit with the UCP's mishandling of auto insurance and rising rates.

So guess who's next?

Public transit users.

Word is, the UCP is looking at a provincial surcharge on all city bus and lrt rides that it will mandate municipalities to collect. It's a surcharge on every public transit ticket. This will raise the cost of transit use for people and the money won't go to cities, it will go into general provincial revenues - $10s of millions a year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top