May 28th, 2024

Third bridge needs to be marketed properly

By Letter to the Editor on December 22, 2021.

I believe the third bridge or thoughts of a third bridge are being marketed incorrectly and probably will end up being another fiasco much like the buying of the airport! Then deciding to put all the drug addicts in all our local motels so the motel “star ratings” tank on places like TripAdvisor and Lethbridge gets a bad reputation! So if Lethbridge thinks it truly needs a third bridge, it should be marketed as a bypass not as a subdivision invader that it now appears it maybe.
If Lethbridge wants a third bridge consider thinking of it as a bypass bridge for those that do not want or need to go through the city. So for instance, if the bridge was located south of Southridge subdivision or south of the airport, then It could cross the Oldman River then bend around the back of Sunridge subdivision, Coalbanks Elementary School subdivision (area), back of the Cor Van Ray YMCA, back of Pacific Park, and finally onto Highway 3. On and off ramps could join the end of University Drive, Coalbanks Blvd West, 24th Avenue West and Whoop-Up then join into an extended Quarry Drive West.
To facilitate integration of Highway 4and 5 on east Lethbridge, you create a better connector from the airport area to Stewart Siding and from there to Crowsnest Highway.
Most of this would be federal and provincial money, I would believe and would not destroy existing subdivisions with excess traffic.
It would also promote expansion on both sides of the city. And facilitate faster access to the Airport for the obvious expected growth that is being planned.
Creating a focal point at or near the airport area would facilitate easy access, to and from Highways 4.5, and 3 and the entire backside of West Lethbridge. So if you were going to do this, then do it right!
Make sure there are proper abutments/concrete fencing alongside the bypass so it would disturb no one, something the city never chose to do with the CP Shuttle Yard on Highway 3! South and north Lethbridge adjacent to the CP shuttle yard do not appreciate the past poor planning on the part of the city.
So get this one right if you choose this route or don’t do it at all!
Dennis Bremner

Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Some good ideas there Dennis. I’d even go further, if it’s a bypass we may be able to get provincial funding. As it is the citizens of Lethbridge are 100% responsible for the costs of the proposed bridge.


Decent idea, however the by pass with the Cana Mex highway has already hit the dust bin it seems. So to engage in another bypass going the other way around the city is to me, a non starter. So if your idea comes to fruition it would be third time lucky. Having done the studies and bought the property twice, a third time will be the charm??? Doubtful. Here is the link to the previous report on the “third bridge” and its dedication location. Note that since this study the city has increased in population a mere 15 k. Traffic counts will show that the bridge has not achieved capacity levels at any time. What you have is bunch not leaving home 5 minutes sooner. I drove that bridge 4 times in the morning “rush hour” 7-8:30am and twice in the afternoon 3-4:30 pm and in those four years maybe had three or four times where I was “detoured” to Bridge Drive making me late for my delivery by at the most 5 minutes. Still kept the job. Lol. Opinion elsewhere suggest the current bridge speed limit be reduced to 70 kmh year round. Then everyone would go 85 instead of 105. There were nine studies on the Chinook location, do we need another nine? Do we NEED a third bridge, NO. Your suggestion will add another 15-20 minutes on the morning commute and thus makes the location moot in “solving” the extra two minutes it takes me to get work crowd.,%202009%20CIC%20Meeting%20Agenda.pdf#search=Bridge%20location%20Chinook%20Heights


What an utterly ridiculous suggestion. The new bridge south of the airport is a totally idiotic idea. The bridge is to alleviate traffic issues for westside residents, not to add to them by making them drive an extra 10 miles round trip from the westside to the southside. I had to reread it to see if it said what I first read.
Maybe I should give you credit for foresight as the only way this makes sense is if you are thinking 70 years in the future when people may live that far south.

Last edited 2 years ago by Sharkmeister

any chance we could just stop “expanding” and running over what little remains of our natural areas? do we really have so little respect for nature and the creatures that depend on what little tidbits remain? in addition to the loss of our beautiful surroundings, it seems to me we can hardly afford to look after the infrastructure we already have. for me, i would rather have us do with one “leth” bridge.


I don’t think we need another freeway. How about a 2 lane 60 kph crossing like the Rowland bridge in Edmonton. Use the existing right of way (Macleod Drive to Scenic 24 Ave) that the city originally set aside for this.


Exactly. How much more money is going to be wasted by council and administration to come up with the same conclusion. Wait, it won’t be a same conclusion, but an expensive one. Your idea is rife with common sense. Severely lacking in a world where there are no consequences for elected officials actions.

Last edited 2 years ago by buckwheat