God
Active Member
Yes having the high level closed to vehicles and remaining as a pedestrian bridge only would be a better solution.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
thommyjo
Senior Member
Would it look good having a 3rd bridge in this area? That’s my only concern with keeping the HL and also building a new one. If we did build a brand new one with cars, transit, and active pathways, my hope would be that the high level line ideas help to push the design to also be more like a park, than just a concrete walkway. If we are going to spend 200-350mil on a bridge, let’s make it world class.
I’m not against a complete rebuild if the HL isn’t something we can really save. Kicking the can down the road can backfire. I don’t love the idea of expanding car capacity, but the HL is also whack for alignment, width, and emergency vehicle/bus safety. Ideally if we kick the can 25 years, car ownership will be way down and that’ll help us not overbuild like 4+ car lanes.
I’d love if LRT was possible on this bridge. Cars, LRT deck, Linear park on 3rd level. But since that’s not an option, idk what to do.
I’m sure happy we demolished the old walterdale and didn’t keep half of it as a cafe walkout thing. Sometimes preservation isn’t the right call. But idk in this case. Not getting the linear park feels like a huge miss. But LRT is probably critical here.
I’m not against a complete rebuild if the HL isn’t something we can really save. Kicking the can down the road can backfire. I don’t love the idea of expanding car capacity, but the HL is also whack for alignment, width, and emergency vehicle/bus safety. Ideally if we kick the can 25 years, car ownership will be way down and that’ll help us not overbuild like 4+ car lanes.
I’d love if LRT was possible on this bridge. Cars, LRT deck, Linear park on 3rd level. But since that’s not an option, idk what to do.
I’m sure happy we demolished the old walterdale and didn’t keep half of it as a cafe walkout thing. Sometimes preservation isn’t the right call. But idk in this case. Not getting the linear park feels like a huge miss. But LRT is probably critical here.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
The way I view it, sure a new bridge would be more effective, just like a new library building was bigger and more effective than the Carnegie Library we used to have, just like a new court house was bigger and more effective than the old provincial court house building, just like Rogers Place is bigger and more effective than the coliseum. I can go on and on. I find it funny where there are some that bemoan the destruction of older smaller building that ultimately are much less effective that what replaces them but here the attitude is now opposite that we need to get rid of the high level because it's past its effectiveness. Yes they did great work on the Strathcona but a brand new building would have been bigger and better. So do we care about history, or only only history that suits us?
NateTheUrbanist
Active Member
Given the options currently available, keeping this is the safest one. It would have been terrible for the city and the history of the city if High-Level Bridge was torn down. When the city is truly ready to commit to a replacement, transition High-Level Bridge into a cycling/pedestrian bridge to keep history alive.
itom987
Active Member
I personally think it would be best to tear down the HLB and build a completely new bridge in a more graceful version of the old style.
David A
Senior Member
It is easier to repurpose an old building than an old bridge and its harder to repurpose something more specific, like the Coliseum. Some things work, some don't.
I believe the decision to spend some money to extend the useful life of the bridge is a good one. However, then the bigger decisions will come in 20 years or so.
If high speed rail or another LRT line proceeds sooner then another bridge can built beside it. However, I suspect they will not proceed that quickly.
Also given replacing a bridge is a major undertaking and we just did the 105 Street one a few years ago, the city probably does not want to proceed with another replacement any time soon.
I believe the decision to spend some money to extend the useful life of the bridge is a good one. However, then the bigger decisions will come in 20 years or so.
If high speed rail or another LRT line proceeds sooner then another bridge can built beside it. However, I suspect they will not proceed that quickly.
Also given replacing a bridge is a major undertaking and we just did the 105 Street one a few years ago, the city probably does not want to proceed with another replacement any time soon.
Airboy
Senior Member
updating the HLB will prolong the life and give the necessary time to build a replacement. The new one if done right could be anywhere from 500,mil to 1B. Also building a new bridge before decommissioning the old. It will be left as a historic structure.
IanO
Superstar
Either restore and reinvigorate or remove... don't retain something just to retain it.
That said, restore.
That said, restore.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Restoring will never extend its life long enough unless we effectively rebuild it, which is borderline impossible.
As much as I'd love to live in a pie-in-the-sky world where the High Level's capacity and durability are enough for a 2M+ people metro, reality is harsher.
The Gondola is cool and will be a great transit addition, but will never replace an actual bridge, car usage percentages might fall, but unless we become Berlin within the next 25 years, with the populational growth, traffic will increase substantially and the High Level will be even more of a liability for emergency services and a chokepoint bus routes and overall traffic, especially considering the densification of Old Strathcona and Garneau.
Not to mention the potential to become a much more comfortable and safe pedestrian and bicycle routes, allow for high-volume transit modes and even potentially HSR (or any heavy rail altogether).
And there's still the potential to create another landmark, which can become a bit of a tourist draw and pile up with the host of new cool projects for Downtown and Old Strathcona (Gondola, Pedestrian Bridge, Warehouse District Park, VLW LRT...).
If we are to keep the current bridge (which I agree we should do, as it is a very significant part of our history) it no longer can be the main connection between the two densest areas of a major metro. Restore, yes, but repurpose as part of the Highline Park project, provide space for ERRS service expansion (if and when they have capacity), use it another way to facilitate active transportation... Denying its obsolescence for the current purpose will only prolong the suffering and make the solution more expensive.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Here are my plans for a future High Level Bridge:
1. Retain the High Level Bridge as a MUP on the main level and the streetcar and rail on the top level.
2. Build a new 2-way 4 lane 1-level bridge east of the High Level Bridge for vehicular traffic that will include 18-wheelers and public transit. May wanna include MUPs on this new bridge if necessary.
3. North of the High Level Bridge, transform the west side of 109 St into a pedestrian plaza.
4. North of the High Level Bridge, the east side of 109 St should be changed from a 1-way road into a 2-way road, using a small strip of land from the Legislature grounds.
5. North of the bridges, replace that dog's breakfast of roads into a roundabout that services 109 St and 97 Ave.
6. South of the bridges, install another roundabout that services 109 St NB/SB, Saskatchewan Drive (1 way or 2 way), Walterdale Hill Road (1 way or 2 way) and 88 Ave.
7. Widen the MUPs south of the bridges.
1. Retain the High Level Bridge as a MUP on the main level and the streetcar and rail on the top level.
2. Build a new 2-way 4 lane 1-level bridge east of the High Level Bridge for vehicular traffic that will include 18-wheelers and public transit. May wanna include MUPs on this new bridge if necessary.
3. North of the High Level Bridge, transform the west side of 109 St into a pedestrian plaza.
4. North of the High Level Bridge, the east side of 109 St should be changed from a 1-way road into a 2-way road, using a small strip of land from the Legislature grounds.
5. North of the bridges, replace that dog's breakfast of roads into a roundabout that services 109 St and 97 Ave.
6. South of the bridges, install another roundabout that services 109 St NB/SB, Saskatchewan Drive (1 way or 2 way), Walterdale Hill Road (1 way or 2 way) and 88 Ave.
7. Widen the MUPs south of the bridges.
Last edited:
chrisvazquez7
Active Member
We could rename Oliver ”Three Bridges”!
IanO
Superstar
I see my bulb!
Gronk!
Senior Member
This happens almost weekly.
edmonton.ctvnews.ca
Truck drivers should learn to use the James MacDonald Bridge if their rig is about 3.2 m in height.
Can they not understand these signs?
Semi-trailer truck gets stuck on High Level Bridge
The vehicle got stuck under the streetcar portion on the north end of the bridge, near Constable Ezio Faraone Park.
Truck drivers should learn to use the James MacDonald Bridge if their rig is about 3.2 m in height.
Can they not understand these signs?
Airboy
Senior Member
They keep relying on GPS. But shit, you are supposed to know the height of your vehicle.
BrettB
Active Member
Absolutely, they should know. Would it be easier to just ban trucks on the bridge?