June 25th, 2024

Lethbridge needs a third bridge – it’s time to stop dreaming


By Lethbridge Herald on February 22, 2023.

Editor:

I feel with the next provincial election, we are facing the perfect storm. There’s usually a lot of election promises.

The question is what promises will the different parties make to sway the votes in Lethbridge? 

We currently have Nathan Neudorf, who is serving as the Deputy Premier and the Minister of infrastructure. You would think with these two roles that he would have the ability to find some cash to help build the third bridge. Plus money to help build the Chinook Trail that is going to feed traffic to the third bridge. 

There’s no use having a bridge without a main roads going to it. Does he realize that over 60 per cent of Lethbridge voted for that third bridge? Whatever party promises to build the third bridge they would be smart, to make it as a tourist attraction, much like the Brooklyn bridge in New York or the Golden Gate Bridge in California.

Why not make a twin High Level Bridge that automobiles could use on one level and pedestrian/bikers on the other? We could call it the Blackfoot Bridge to honour the people who live on this land. This third bridge and ring road would provide a faster and more efficient access to the Lethbridge Airport, too. Truckers would prefer to use it because it would be level compared to climbing the big westside hill. 

The ring road would provide better access to the leisure centre/crossings from Highway 3 which would probably attract more businesses or even a hotel or two. All the different communities on the westside would benefit to having expressway to Highway 3 and going west or to the south side of Lethbridge. 

With all these benefits, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this would be a very positive thing for Lethbridge. Stop stalling and build it. Just think if we would have built it in the 1980s or 1990s how much cheaper it would hav been. It probably would have been paid for by now. 

Don’t say we need to do more planning, the City of Lethbridge has been planning this for over 40 years. This project should be shovel-ready – if not we have wasted a lot of taxpayers money. Let’s stop dreaming and get to work building this infrastructure in Lethbridge. 

Crystal Tsritter

Lethbridge

Share this story:

12
-11
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Citi Zen

It should be operated as a toll bridge, which has been done successfully by numerous cities. Why make taxpayers pay for something they may never benefit from?

gs172

How long or how much would you have to charge to pay for a 300 million dollar bridge In a city of 100,000? The only way toll roads or bridges work is there has to a benefit to the user. How much would you pay to save 5-10 minutes? More likely the bridge would sit empty meanwhile taxpayers pay for maintenance. Stellar idea…not.

buckwheat

First, there is a study already done with Chinook Trail as the location. So Hyggen is asking for money for another study. Redundant. Second, this bridge nonsense only pops up when the weather takes a turn for the worse. How dare I have to leave my house 10 minutes earlier. I drove that bridge every morning for four years both ways and again in the afternoon both ways. The number of times in those 1600 or so trips that I was “inconvenienced”, SIX!!!!. Build me another bridge!!!! To build what you are suggesting a two tier four lane bridge will probably imo come in north of 300 million and that would be on a good day. Do you prefer a 5.00 each way toll to cross or do you think everyone should kick in a couple of thousand more a year for taxes to infinity so you are not inconvenienced 3 times a year. Further the question on the ballot was not to build another bridge, the question was to the effect to study the need, which in 2009 was already done. Look it up. In short by all traffic counts we are far away from the congestion that requires another bridge. Pressure council to reduce the speed to 60 kmh year round and add seconds to your day.
Unless you are getting your food, fuel and shelter free or a trust fund baby there is no way in the world we should be looking at building another bridge at this point. Inflation running high, costs of food skyrockets, fuel the same, and assessed values on house increasing in double digit multiples, millions being poured in to downtown, the drug problem, homelessness, etc. These are far more important and in line for a “study” than people being slowed down on a bridge. Your expectations are beyond expectations.

Last edited 1 year ago by buckwheat
gs172

I agree 100%, a third bridge is a nice to have not a must have. Just because its provincial or federal money doesn’t make it free, far from it actually.

R.U.Serious

I heard him say he wanted to see what funding would be available from the federal and provincial governments, I believe the Mayor is not asking for a study on the costs of the new bridge. When they conducted the previous study, there was no funding available.

buckwheat

In other words he wants to find out if Smith and Trudeau have some cases of cash no one knows about kicking around from our other pockets. The first thing they will want is another study, so square one. We do not need a bridge. Most intelligent community administrations would invest a few bucks and lay down some traffic counters to see just how many and when cross this bridge daily and at given times. What we have is an outcry with no basis in facts. Like my comment above. If a person is delayed 4 or 5 times a year, live with it. Less on new infrastructure, more on old, cue the pot hole brigade.

Montreal13

I guess the mayor and council think people have realy,really short memories. And council can pretend they are considering it?

biff

stop dreaming?! lol the letter seems most about a dream. indeed, a tourist attraction of a bridge, for maybe only 2 dollars more, but if that would cost 3 dollars more, so what 🙂 this would be the “attraction” that finally puts lethbridge firmly on the tourist top 10. we could add hang gliding and bungee jumping businesses from it; a restaurant with a view; another city hall building; a movie theatre with a drive in; oh, another library, so those on the west side – an eternity away – do not have to go all the way south on the west side and all…hey, why not an airport, too, so as to relieve the congestion and inconvenience related to getting to the present one.
but for a name, is not the blackfoot bridge too limited? did not some other group(s) ever claim the land before the blackfoot? hard to imagine they or any other people simply seeded here out of thin air. given there is evidence to support peoples coming to these parts from asia and such, maybe 13,000 years ago, one might think there have been numerous groups laying claim to this here land? a quick zip forward from 13,000 years ago to 1870, was there not a battle of belly river – cree v blackfoot? heck, are they even at all close to being best buds today? what happened to the vanquished?
the point i am making: how far back do we go when recognising who land “historically” belongs to? what are we using as defining terms of “historical” ownership?
so, maybe before we go ahead with a jolly good bridge full of tourist attraction status, should we not commission an expensive study to determine a best name? hopefully, even though we will get robbed in study fees, it might go the way of almost all expensive studies/commissions in this country, and get shelved and forgotten – and not acted upon. then, we can forget about moving on said bridge .
excellent input from cit and buck. if a third bridge ever does come, it best be paid for only by users: toll it. as it now stands, a third bridge is far more about convenience than need.

Sharkmeister

What are you smoking? Make it a tourist attraction like the Golden Gate Bridge. That may be the single dumbest comment I have ever heard on here. It would probably have to cost twice as much to make it worthy of tourists going out of their way to see a bridge and even then none would go. I can’t stop shaking my head at this it is so asinine.
Also, this bridge is to connect two residential areas so would basically be off-limits to all but locally required trucks.

What makes this so ironic is your title says “time to stop dreaming”. Your entire post is a giant acid induced dream.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sharkmeister
Montreal13

Right. Too much orange sunshine or mushrooms.

YQLDude

Is it really worth spending $300 million on a bridge that’s only necessary for the 5-10 days a year with major snowfall? It’s time to read the room – in a world with climate change, air pollution, climbing pedestrian deaths, and increased desire for active living we don’t need more car infrastructure, we need to find ways to get people out of cars. What would $300 million do towards our bus service? Our bike network? Our multiuse paths?
Your idea is neat, and if we build a 3rd bridge I certainly see the appeal of your proposal, but we just don’t need it.

R.U.Serious

I think the most recent estimate was close to $200 million. Who requires a bridge, you ask? Everyone needs to be riding bicycles in temperatures as low as minus 30 degrees, slipping on the ice, and breaking bones. Create a bike network and schedule buses to run every five minutes. In the end, cars are not necessary. Fly to Calgary and use the bicycle you hired at the airport to get about the city and do business. In your backyard, grow what you require and store food for the winter, but avoid raising livestock because they produce methane. Return to the era of the cavemen!
Although though everything we buy has at some point been transported by truck, we don’t actually need trucks to deliver anything.
Sure, let’s all roll a big, fat joint and relax on our porches smoking while daydreaming about Utopia!
I have some news for you. We are on the verge of World War III, and there will be an increase in natural disasters, extreme weather, and shortages in every sector of the supply chain.