News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
No point -- for westbound Yellowhead there's already one at 125 Ave, and eastbound there's no space at 66 St for an offbound turnout anyway.

The latter problem persists in the interchange design and presents an access issue for Montrose -- traffic exits at Fort Road and either has to head south to 118 Ave, or north to 125 Ave where there's an at-grade crossing with the LRT.

As for a pedestrian overpass, both sides are industrial so again, no point.
 
Last edited:
66 St was planned as an overpass with one interchange movement (onramp to YHT EB) but "Interim solution is being developed based on the final plan" leads me to believe that they are going after the low hanging value engineering fruit of just removing the overpass for the time being.

I would have agreed, except that 66 St was integral to that continuous cycling route from 142 St to 50 St, as the path is largely on the south side of Yellowhead but crosses north between Fort Road and 66 St. They could maintain the existing sidewalk on the north side of Yellowhead Trail between Fort Road and 66 Street as a shared use path and introduce a pedestrian crossing across Fort Road in the interim. It likely won't be used frequently enough to disrupt vehicular traffic flow, and Fort Road traffic isn't high enough to justify how long of a light signal it has at the moment, especially with 3 through lanes in each direction. Actually the left turn movement from Fort Road/Wayne Gretzky north onto YHT WB is the one movement that deserves more time.
 
dkazzed said:
66 St was planned as an overpass with one interchange movement (onramp to YHT EB) but "Interim solution is being developed based on the final plan" leads me to believe that they are going after the low hanging value engineering fruit of just removing the overpass for the time being.

I would have agreed, except that 66 St was integral to that continuous cycling route from 142 St to 50 St, as the path is largely on the south side of Yellowhead but crosses north between Fort Road and 66 St. They could maintain the existing sidewalk on the north side of Yellowhead Trail between Fort Road and 66 Street as a shared use path and introduce a pedestrian crossing across Fort Road in the interim. It likely won't be used frequently enough to disrupt vehicular traffic flow, and Fort Road traffic isn't high enough to justify how long of a light signal it has at the moment, especially with 3 through lanes in each direction. Actually the left turn movement from Fort Road/Wayne Gretzky north onto YHT WB is the one movement that deserves more time.
Click to expand...
It's out to tender for design and construction, and they're asking for a right in right out solution that allows for a future partial overpass per the concept design. It also asks the proponent to "identify and plan the new Shared Use Path requirements between Wayne Gretzky Drive and 66 Street."
 
I’m thinking 66 Street is much like 149 Street. The north section connects with Fort Road and 125 Avenue. At least residents south of the Yellowhead can reach the Yellowhead from 50 Street or Gretzky Drive.
 
Just do it right the first time (the designed overpass for which they had a video done up for it). The way expenses balloon for projects over time will just make this an even more expensive fix in the future.
 
Satellite imagery from Google Earth Pro taken last month. You can see where they're doing the grading to realign the freeway, the piles for the overpass and the grading/drainage work for the surrounding interchange.
1749748324908.png
 
I do wonder if/how having to clean the soil would affect the time to build this. I say this because apparently, one of the reasons why Blatchford is taking so long is because they need to clean the soil from radioactive materials being a former airport.
 
fromtraintotower said:
I do wonder if/how having to clean the soil would affect the time to build this. I say this because apparently, one of the reasons why Blatchford is taking so long is because they need to clean the soil from radioactive materials being a former airport.
Click to expand...
Curious, why would an airfield be radioactive?
 
fromtraintotower said:
I do wonder if/how having to clean the soil would affect the time to build this. I say this because apparently, one of the reasons why Blatchford is taking so long is because they need to clean the soil from radioactive materials being a former airport.
Click to expand...
Remediation is generally being conducted as buildings are torn down and/or the areas being prepared for development (e.g. site grading). I haven't heard of it being a significant road block to date.

And as far as I am aware, none of the remediation is due to radioactive materials.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top