Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 559

Thread: Centre LRT | Strathcona

  1. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    From what I understand, it's primarily to establish a "dedication" of the route and ROW. Which is good planning. Set the route, manage and streamline an efficient Valley Line to University bus route/frequency/light jumps, or whatever from now until 2030. Examine the data and change accordingly. While even at that time, everyone will know that transit is a priority on that route, and density, design, planning will build around that. Any more than that I have no idea why.

    The City will need some good measurements of data and some transit tweaks along Whyte to get some good analysis.
    Still makes no sense.
    The city can improve bus service without considering a future LRT route. We can build signal priority for buses on any route, it doesn't matter if there's LRT planned.
    We can collect data on any bus route without LRT plans.

    It's actually completely backwards, since it should be ridership data that drives LRT plans not the other way around. Especially LRT plans like this one that would be essentially streetcars.
    There can only be one.

  2. #202

    Default

    I'd rather they did an LRT east - west on the south side running down 23rd avenue from mill woods to century park

  3. #203

    Default

    Main word I guess is "dedication". It'll dictate all future planning known onward that Whyte will have, at some point, a transit ROW. They did a forecast along the route on transit usage and it came up reading LRT, or a system of that capacity will be needed by 2035/2040 under the current priority for densification and transit use increase, persist.

    Post 2020, we will most likely see better/more frequent transit on Whyte.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  4. #204

    Default

    ^^RVG

    That's the thing.

    Rather than planning a handful of extremely expensive LRT projects that may or may not happen decades in the future the city should be implementing Frequent/enhanced bus corridors all over the city, like now. We're wasting money, political capital and staff hours on this when we should be doing more important things.
    There can only be one.

  5. #205
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I'd rather they did an LRT east - west on the south side running down 23rd avenue from mill woods to century park
    You are not serious are you? What possible purpose would that serve?
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    That's the thing.

    Rather than planning a handful of extremely expensive LRT projects that may or may not happen decades in the future the city should be implementing Frequent/enhanced bus corridors all over the city, like now. We're wasting money, political capital and staff hours on this when we should be doing more important things.
    The Transit Strategy, which has been years in the making now with lots of public input (takes forever, but that's democracy), should be released some time this year, which implements over the years 2018-2020 that very transit priority you speak of. Very impatient about that plan.

    The route is also following closely with new zoning and land-use planning along Whyte: https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/PD...use-boards.pdf
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  7. #207

    Default

    ^^ Exactly. It's transit wankery like this that keeps Edmonton's transit a joke. Too many people focused on the horizon & big ticket items, not enough people working on fixing what we've got. How many years long is the project to fix the bus routes?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Main word I guess is "dedication". It'll dictate all future planning known onward that Whyte will have, at some point, a transit ROW. They did a forecast along the route on transit usage and it came up reading LRT, or a system of that capacity will be needed by 2035/2040 under the current priority for densification and transit use increase, persist.

    Post 2020, we will most likely see better/more frequent transit on Whyte.
    Bold mine

    They did no such thing.

    The recent planning started with the assumption that we would be building LRT E-W somewhere on the near south side and linking into the valley line on both ends, and considered only which route might be best.

    That idea came from a consultant who maybe spent a few days in the city based on criteria that valued development over transportation and quaintness over both capacity and speed. The same people who recommended duplicating the existing undercapacity LRT link between downtown and the university with another one.
    There can only be one.

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Just lines on the map, Ian.
    Besides, misses the U of A entirely which is one of main points of this exercise.

  10. #210
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,994

    Default

    Kinda sorta. The UofA is a 2 block walk from the stop on the south end of the bridge. But yes, I recognize the intent here...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I'd rather they did an LRT east - west on the south side running down 23rd avenue from mill woods to century park
    You are not serious are you? What possible purpose would that serve?
    Yes I'm serious. The south is the fastest growing area. If not 23rd ave, then it should do a curve of sorts and go by the Ellerslie/South Edmonton Common area, thereby connecting the western and eastern parts of the city. Don't ask me about the engineering requirements or costs. And let's not forget about the vast tracts of land they're appropriating down there.
    Last edited by River Valley Green; 08-02-2018 at 01:57 PM.

  12. #212

    Default

    You're falling for the same trap as the city.

    "This area deserves LRT because there's lots of people there and no LRT"




    Nobody deserves LRT, there's no growth or population numbers that demand LRT. Neither is LRT the only way to connect areas of the city.

    A viable way to get east-west without a car and without going halfway to downtown first? That's a reasonable expectation.
    There can only be one.

  13. #213

    Default

    I don't know what the proper philosophy is for LRT. Look at maps of Tokyo, London, New York. The trains go everywhere.

  14. #214

    Default

    I, for one, like the route. I think it is a look into the future. When I came here 60 years ago, Edmonton had a little over 200,000 people. No Sherwood Park. St. Albert, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Beaumont were all tiny communities. We've had a five or sixfold increase in population since then and there are at least twice as meany cars per capita. If the future is anything like the past, traffic congestion is going to get insufferable. Building freeways through the inner city is a zero sum game (as we can see in other places), so we need some alternate way of getting people from where they live to where they want to go. Planning for future LRT to address this issue is prudent. As far as the route goes, going down 112th street makes sense as it provides good service to the university and good connections to buses and the Capital line at the University transit centre. It also provides great service to public places like the Health Sciences Centre and the NA Jubilee Auditorium. I'm getting on in years and positively dislike riding buses due to the constant changes in speed, potholes, stops and starts and just all around discomfort. Trains are much smoother rides with fewer stops and starts. I see myself buying a transit pass once lrt gets out to my neck of the woods, and would love to use it to get over to Whyte ave or the university area as well as downtown. I would like to see the city building some of these lines concurrently, but I'll take what I can get.

  15. #215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I don't know what the proper philosophy is for LRT. Look at maps of Tokyo, London, New York. The trains go everywhere.
    Population of metro London: 14 million
    Population of metro New York: 20.2 million
    Population of metro Tokyo: 37.8 million

    Population of Canada: 36.3 million

    (Sources: Google/Wikipedia)

  16. #216
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I don't know what the proper philosophy is for LRT. Look at maps of Tokyo, London, New York. The trains go everywhere.
    I don’t have to look at a map of London’s underground I grew up there. I can assure you the lines may go everywhere but they don’t go anywhere. The original network was designed to move people around in the city core those massive extensions were real estate plays. The northern line in particular took a huge investment to tunnel under the hills north of the city to Edgeware. They did not build it to a car oriented power centre. So unless SEC decides to redevelop the area into a TOD it would be a total waste.
    Here are a couple of videos that bring up several interesting points.
    https://youtu.be/jjuD288JlCs https://youtu.be/y6Ytw-CqtXY
    Last edited by Glenco; 08-02-2018 at 08:57 PM.

  17. #217
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    And the option to tie into the Menzies to cross the river was not an option why again?
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  18. #218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,228

    Default

    These are just guesses on my part. But part of it is high-floor vs low-floor, less for the rails themselves I gather than the two stations (University and Grandin). Is there room between the University (and Grandin) and the river to put a separate entrance for the low floor?

  19. #219
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    And the option to tie into the Menzies to cross the river was not an option why again?
    Different trains, tracks, signals, preferred route, elevations, etc. I would assume

  20. #220

    Default

    When a low floor train arrives in University Station, nobody would be able to get out because of the platform height, Same at Health Sciences. If you drop down from grond level to the bridge and back up, you'd also be taking the bridge out of service for a year or more.

  21. #221

    Default

    I find it weird... that we can plan to build a new bridge here, but one of the main reason for not building the 87th avenue line was ... the bridge would cost too much. This bridge looks like it will be top of the valley to top of the valley, but the 87th avenue option would've been mid valley similiar to the menzies bridge.

    Which really just equates to city administration will over-inflate the cost of anything it doesn't wanna support, rather than finding a real reason not support it. 109/104 avenue grade separation? It will cost 200-400M apparently... but we can plan to build a top to top of valley LRT bridge?!?! If we use administrations math, that bridge alone is going to cost billions and billion and billions and billions. Sad really.
    Last edited by Medwards; 12-02-2018 at 02:36 PM.

  22. #222

    Default

    No, actually billions and billions and billions and billions. You missed one. FCOL
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #223

    Default

    Ditch the Centre LRT bridge. Extend the Capital Line from Clareview to WEM'Lewis Estates via 87 ave. Run the Metro Line from NAIT to Century park. Extend the Valley Line from downtown to Jasper Place via 107 ave or Westmount/142 st/107 ave 156 st. Boom. Done. You're not tearing up the main, direct route downtown from the West. You've got lots of TOD potential along the Vally Line. You've got direct connection from the west end to Downtown and the University.

    If you want the Centre Line, just run it as a branch off the Vally Line from Bonnie Doon to Heath Sciences (south of the parkade on 83 ave and north of Corbett Hall. Short one block walk to Health Sciences) . End of line right here.

    https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.51870...7i13312!8i6656
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 12-02-2018 at 03:19 PM.

  24. #224
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,994

    Default

    Centre LRT Study
    Strathcona/Downtown/Bonnie Doon
    Phase 1 of our study has concluded and we are sharing the preferred LRT route. This new route is part of City Council’s 2009 long-term LRT Network Plan to create seamless or one transfer connections via LRT and/or bus to all quadrants of the City.
    Now is your chance to comment on the preferred route and help determine future stop locations.
    You can view the preferred route online at edmonton.ca/centrelrtstudy and at our public engagement events.
    Public Engagement Event: Open for Drop-in from 4:30 – 8:30pm with Presentation times at 5:00pm and 7:00pm (repeat)
    Public Engagement Event

    Public Engagement Event

    Public Engagement Event
    February 15, 2018

    February 27, 2018

    February 28, 2018
    The Matrix Hotel- Quartz Ballroom

    St. Basil’s Cultural Centre

    Campus Saint Jean- McMahon Pavilion Gymnasium
    10640 – 100th Avenue, Edmonton

    10819 - 71 Ave NW, Edmonton

    8406 Rue Marie-Anne Gaboury NW, Edmonton
    4:30pm – 8:30pm

    4:30pm – 8:30pm

    4:30pm – 8:30pm
    Online survey available until March 16, 2018.
    For more information visit: edmonton.ca/centrelrtstudy
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  25. #225

    Default

    Completed the survey.

  26. #226
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Ditch the Centre LRT bridge. Extend the Capital Line from Clareview to WEM'Lewis Estates via 87 ave. Run the Metro Line from NAIT to Century park. Extend the Valley Line from downtown to Jasper Place via 107 ave or Westmount/142 st/107 ave 156 st. Boom. Done. You're not tearing up the main, direct route downtown from the West. You've got lots of TOD potential along the Vally Line. You've got direct connection from the west end to Downtown and the University.

    If you want the Centre Line, just run it as a branch off the Vally Line from Bonnie Doon to Heath Sciences (south of the parkade on 83 ave and north of Corbett Hall. Short one block walk to Health Sciences) . End of line right here.

    https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.51870...7i13312!8i6656
    Not a bad idea. Why duplicate the river crossing if it's as simple as a surface transfer to the other train? If this were an actual option they could still build it so it could one day cross the river on a new bridge (possibly piggybacking on another project even).

  27. #227
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Can't find the survey for some reason.

  28. #228

    Default

    Reasons why the high level bridge is not an option:

    CROSSING THE RIVER

    While the High Level Bridge was the preferred river crossing,investigation and analysis determined the bridge, with orwithout extensive upgrades, could not support the additionalload of LRT trains. The Dudley B. Menzies Bridge was notconsidered as it runs the Capital and Metro high-floor LRTlines and cannot accommodate the low-floor system.

    This was taken from the city's planning bulletin and maps located at : https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...nFeb6_2018.pdf

  29. #229

    Default

    ^^I couldn't either, I believe it's in person first then maybe a link will be posted soon.
    www.decl.org

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    ... investigation and analysis determined the bridge, with orwithout extensive upgrades, could not support the additionalload of LRT trains.
    Really? Love to see the engineering report that states that. Is it published?
    ... gobsmacked

  31. #231
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    I wonder if it's cheaper to build an LRT bridge or a vehicular bridge. Just thinking out loud here, but what if we use the High Level Bridge for a train as it was originally intended (plus pedestrian/bike/etc if possible), and build a new bridge that's wider than a hallway for personal vehicles?

    Slide the bridge building costs out of the public transportation column and into the "MOAR ROADS" column and it'll be approved and built in short order.

    PRO:
    - no more tractor trailers slamming into the historically significant bridge
    - Fewer lights/smoother traffic flow
    - No tight turns and narrow lanes
    - Clears up a lot of traffic issues during rush hour
    - Clears up any bike/pedestrian lobby issues surrounding river crossings and could, in theory, create a neat high-line style park

    CONS:
    - City departments would actually have to work together
    - Still building a bridge
    - Timing (build, roadworks, track construction, etc.) would need to work out very cleanly
    - New bridge would probably need at least a few years of study/consultation
    - New bridge is going to be super expensive
    - Still need to deal with CN

  32. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^^I couldn't either, I believe it's in person first then maybe a link will be posted soon.
    February Insight Community Survey has an opt-in for further Centre LRT survey.
    www.decl.org

  33. #233
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    - Still need to deal with CN
    What does CN have to do with it?

  34. #234

    Default

    ^Rail ROW on the High Level Bridge.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  35. #235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    Reasons why the high level bridge is not an option:

    CROSSING THE RIVER

    While the High Level Bridge was the preferred river crossing,investigation and analysis determined the bridge, with orwithout extensive upgrades, could not support the additionalload of LRT trains. The Dudley B. Menzies Bridge was notconsidered as it runs the Capital and Metro high-floor LRTlines and cannot accommodate the low-floor system.

    This was taken from the city's planning bulletin and maps located at : https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...nFeb6_2018.pdf

    That's interesting - I'm curious if there are any engineering challenges associated with building in between the two existing bridges.

    I still think three bridges in this area would be total overkill - classic CoE planning. I would prefer they put the project on ice until a replacement of the high-level is required... OR if the City was so inclined, retire the high-level early and do it right the first time. It would save costs in the long since the high level will have to be replaced in the coming 50 or so years - not because of lifespan but due to its limited capacity.

  36. #236

    Default

    ^A few councillors said they'd examine it, and I hope that becomes a part of future consideration, if/when that examination occurs. Makes too much sense.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  37. #237
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    Reasons why the high level bridge is not an option:

    CROSSING THE RIVER

    While the High Level Bridge was the preferred river crossing,investigation and analysis determined the bridge, with orwithout extensive upgrades, could not support the additionalload of LRT trains. The Dudley B. Menzies Bridge was notconsidered as it runs the Capital and Metro high-floor LRTlines and cannot accommodate the low-floor system.

    This was taken from the city's planning bulletin and maps located at : https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...nFeb6_2018.pdf
    Thanks.!!
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  38. #238
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^Rail ROW on the High Level Bridge.
    The CPR owned the row and it went to the city. It is now in operational control of the High Level streetcar folks who rebuilt and reinstalled the rail and centenary.
    Last edited by cnr67; 14-02-2018 at 09:55 AM.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^Rail ROW on the High Level Bridge.
    The CPR owned the row and it went to the city. It is now in operational control of the High Level streetcar folks who rebuilt and reinstalled the rail and centenary. Whether the city owns the row I'm not sure.
    Sorry, CP. either way the rail company owns it or has some sort of veto power or other nonsense. I recall as much from the HSR conversation a few years back.

  40. #240

    Default

    Far as I'm concerned, the historical streetcar runs a "lease", of some kind of the ROW
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #241
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Far as I'm concerned, the historical streetcar runs a "lease", of some kind of the ROW
    According to https://www.scribd.com/document/7293...ort-Greg-Freer page 57 it's owned by the Province.

  42. #242
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^Rail ROW on the High Level Bridge.
    The CPR owned the row and it went to the city. It is now in operational control of the High Level streetcar folks who rebuilt and reinstalled the rail and centenary. Whether the city owns the row I'm not sure.
    Sorry, CP. either way the rail company owns it or has some sort of veto power or other nonsense. I recall as much from the HSR conversation a few years back.
    The CPR does not own the row. Either the Streetcar folks or the city. My bet is the streetcar society took it over. The bridge is owned by the city.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  43. #243
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Completed the survey.
    Link?
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  44. #244

    Default

    There was a link directly off this page: For more information visit: edmonton.ca/centrelrtstudy

    but it seems to be missing now....

  45. #245
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,994

    Default

    As mentioned above, the Province controls the bridge from a ROW/Use perspective.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    ... investigation and analysis determined the bridge, with orwithout extensive upgrades, could not support the additionalload of LRT trains.
    Really? Love to see the engineering report that states that. Is it published?
    There is an executive summary of Stantec's bridge report here: https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Hi...xecSummary.pdf

  47. #247

    Default

    OK, that makes sense.

    -They looked at adding LRT and bringing the multi-use paths up to standard or moving them to the top deck. The bridge doesn't have the capacity for that.

    -The additional weight of cantilevers for wider multi-use paths combined with the weight of the Strengthened LRT ROW would be too heavy for the superstructure, and when you add in the weight of additional reinforcing that would be required on the steel then even the footings would be at least somewhat overloaded.

    -They don't look into the possibilities of LRT only and no improved paths. Fine with me since LRT can go elsewhere but the HLB is really the only option for the path.

    -They in general recommend against adding expensive new infrastructure on top of corroded old infrastructure. Sounds reasonable.
    There can only be one.

  48. #248
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Completed the survey.
    Why bother? The City is going to do what it wants anyway.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Completed the survey.
    Why bother? The City is going to do what it wants anyway.
    Envaneo. This isnt like you bro everything ok?

  50. #250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There was a link directly off this page: For more information visit: edmonton.ca/centrelrtstudy

    but it seems to be missing now....
    Thanks I will.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  51. #251
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Completed the survey.
    Why bother? The City is going to do what it wants anyway.
    Envaneo. This isnt like you bro everything ok?
    LOL. Just getting over the flu but other wise, situation normal.

    I'm just waking up to the city's so called "public consultation engagement" process.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  52. #252
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Councillor Nickle: My new hero on city council.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  53. #253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    ... investigation and analysis determined the bridge, with or without extensive upgrades, could not support the additional load of LRT trains.
    Really? Love to see the engineering report that states that. Is it published?
    There is an executive summary of Stantec's bridge report here: https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Hi...xecSummary.pdf
    Thanks for the link, this report is brand new.

    I am surprised by the amount of section loss. The terminology is not really engineering terms and a bit ambiguous. I do not think that they are talking about the cross sectional area of the beams but rather the section modulus or I4.

    From visual inspection and thickness measurements, we estimate that the average section loss
    of truss members that was 44% in 1994 has increased by 5%, which is also true of upper deck
    railway stringers and floor beams (58% and 50% respectively in 1994).
    Looks like the bridge is not suitable even for "light" LRT.

    Looks like a dead issue to use the bridge for LRT, HSR or even adding a top deck for two lanes of car traffic.

    I just hope that no Big Brain at the COE proposes a new billion dollar LRT bridge.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #254
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    I read the report as well and the Centre LRT line would require another bridge, apparently.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  55. #255
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    I'm curious to see how they would build a new bridge at what grade considering the apparent route they want to take.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  56. #256

    Default

    From that report, it sounds like the High Level may be approaching end of serviceable life by the time this LRT line will be built. Maybe its prudent to start planning the replacement of the high level bridge in conjunction with a new LRT crossing....

  57. #257
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,994

    Default

    Replace? How about reinvest in. This idea that we cannot respectfully update/modify this to service our city for another 100 years is ridiculous.

    Golden Gate, super high corrosion environment, huge span, all good.

    Reinforce it while maintaining its general look, adapt the top to allow for LRT.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #258

    Default

    Yeah I'm against replacement too. The highlevel bridge is iconic and unique...we would lose a piece of ourselves if we ever took this bridge down.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  59. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Replace? How about reinvest in. This idea that we cannot respectfully update/modify this to service our city for another 100 years is ridiculous.

    Golden Gate, super high corrosion environment, huge span, all good.

    Reinforce it while maintaining its general look, adapt the top to allow for LRT.
    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Hi...xecSummary.pdf

    I'll note that the golden gate bridge isn't being re-purposed, and wasn't neglected by CP for most of its life.

  60. #260
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    Ever walked atop the HLB? You don't even have to, you can just go make passive observations walking along the substructure and see bending and pack rust all over the place. The sheering force and loads of running a fully packed LRT are fairly significant and in this situation, attempting to structurally reinforce the upper deck is only going to push the force down onto parts of the substructure that are already fatigued. This bridge hasn't been well taken care of over it's history and in my opinion, replacement should be looked at as a logical course of action. Especially considering the fact that we are all talking about designing and constructing infrastructure that is supposed to operate into the 2100s.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  61. #261
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    I should also note, that clustering multiple bridges side by side by side and creating an eyesore to save money right now is not an acceptable option in my books either.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  62. #262

    Default

    Pretty much what the stantec report says....

  63. #263

    Default

    Really I would just like to see proper maintenance from now on. It's not like there's any actual functional reason that we need an LRT line there when there's already one a hundred feet over.
    There can only be one.

  64. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    From that report, it sounds like the High Level may be approaching end of serviceable life by the time this LRT line will be built. Maybe its prudent to start planning the replacement of the high level bridge in conjunction with a new LRT crossing....
    Yeah hate to see it go but we’re used to that in the city. Out with the old and in with the new as soon as the refurbishing estimate hits. Maybe it’s replacement could be more, what’s that phony baloney word, “iconic”.

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    It's surely on some historical register, right?

    So that means grant money. Build a new multi-modal bridge for traffic + leave space for future LRT. Fix current traffic bottlenecks in the process. Turn the historic High Level Bridge into a bike + pedestrian connection with the streetcar on top. Maybe even bring back the waterfall one day in the future?

    This is city building. If it can't handle the weight and strain of trains and cars it surely will still be suitable for people and bikes. Fix it up and stop trying to pretend that it's a suitable North/South solution for traffic.

  66. #266
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,228

    Default

    ^ That would solve another problem also. Right now, the sidewalks are not good for both pedestrians and bicycles. Too narrow, too many obstacles. I crossed that last summer after dark and between all the weird shadows, the changing light show and the cycle-bells, I found it an exercise in terror.

    If the entire bridge deck were dedicated to active transport, the bicycles could move to the road with those pedestrians (joggers and such) that like multi use trails. The sidewalks would be restricted to people who like to walk slowly and check the scenery.

  67. #267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    It's surely on some historical register, right?

    So that means grant money. Build a new multi-modal bridge for traffic + leave space for future LRT. Fix current traffic bottlenecks in the process. Turn the historic High Level Bridge into a bike + pedestrian connection with the streetcar on top. Maybe even bring back the waterfall one day in the future?

    This is city building. If it can't handle the weight and strain of trains and cars it surely will still be suitable for people and bikes. Fix it up and stop trying to pretend that it's a suitable North/South solution for traffic.
    I am sure money will have to be spent eventually on the High Level bridge to maintain and upgrade it and I have heard it already argued by some that timing might coincide well with the development of the new LRT line. This bridge carried heavy freight trains and streetcars for years, for heavens sake, so if done right it can probably handle the new LRT. I think it would be smartest to look at the big picture here and try to mesh things together, rather than look at the maintenance of the existing bridge (which we probably need and want to keep anyways) and the LRT line as two separate things. I think it may be hasty and premature to rule out the exiting bridge for the LRT route.

  68. #268

    Default

    We should rule out the High Level Bridge as an LRT route due to the existing LRT bridge running at just 40% capacity just a stone's throw away. We shouldn't need an engineering report on the bridge to realize that LRT shouldn't go there.

    My optimistic half hopes that admin invented this new bridge plan as a way to drive up costs to the point where they're ridiculous and get the idea of another LRT crossing here wiped off the long term plan for good.

    My Cynical half suspect that city council could take an intentionally sandbagged bad idea and think it's a great plan.
    There can only be one.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    This bridge carried heavy freight trains and streetcars for years, for heavens sake, so if done right it can probably handle the new LRT.
    Someone didn't read the Stantec report...

    Overall condition of the structure, including corrosion and loss of section of the steel membersremains a serious concern since so much of the structure has lost strength. The coating is nolonger protecting the steel in some areas; some of the connection plates have deteriorated dueto section loss, and pack-rust is bending the plates and weakening the connection.It is important to note that 1995 strengthening work did not restore the capacity of the structureto support rail loading; past damage and the current condition of the structure will both affectthe ability of the structure to carry any proposed new large load increases.
    The bridge isn't the same bridge it used to be back when it carried heavy rail traffic. Heck, it's not even the same bridge it was in 1995.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think it would be smartest to look at the big picture here and try to mesh things together, rather than look at the maintenance of the existing bridge (which we probably need and want to keep anyways) and the LRT line as two separate things. I think it may be hasty and premature to rule out the exiting bridge for the LRT route.
    Hardly hasty or premature, the bridge simply isn't up to the task.

    The load combination of two LRT tracks and wide Upper Deck SUP (Option 2 or 3)exceeds the total baseline service load for the substructure and superstructure by26% and over 70% respectively. These are significant demands for a 100+ yr. oldstructure that has lost a significant amount of its capacity due to corrosion.

    The load combination of LRT and Upper Deck SUP, with or without lower deckwidening (Option 2 or 3) overloads the substructure such that all land foundationswould need to be investigated and strengthened/underpinned. It is recommendedthat neither Option 2 or 3 is viable / NOT feasible for this reason.

    The load combination of LRT and Upper Deck SUP, with or without lower deckwidening (Option 2 or 3) overloads the superstructure such that about 50% of all thetruss members would need to be strengthened or replaced. We recommend thatdue to the extensive strengthening required to support the proposed loading, andgiven the age of the bridge, this option is not practical / NOT feasible.
    (All from the previously linked Stantec report)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    This bridge carried heavy freight trains and streetcars for years, for heavens sake, so if done right it can probably handle the new LRT.
    Someone didn't read the Stantec report...

    Overall condition of the structure, including corrosion and loss of section of the steel membersremains a serious concern since so much of the structure has lost strength. The coating is nolonger protecting the steel in some areas; some of the connection plates have deteriorated dueto section loss, and pack-rust is bending the plates and weakening the connection.It is important to note that 1995 strengthening work did not restore the capacity of the structureto support rail loading; past damage and the current condition of the structure will both affectthe ability of the structure to carry any proposed new large load increases.
    The bridge isn't the same bridge it used to be back when it carried heavy rail traffic. Heck, it's not even the same bridge it was in 1995.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I think it would be smartest to look at the big picture here and try to mesh things together, rather than look at the maintenance of the existing bridge (which we probably need and want to keep anyways) and the LRT line as two separate things. I think it may be hasty and premature to rule out the exiting bridge for the LRT route.
    Hardly hasty or premature, the bridge simply isn't up to the task.

    The load combination of two LRT tracks and wide Upper Deck SUP (Option 2 or 3)exceeds the total baseline service load for the substructure and superstructure by26% and over 70% respectively. These are significant demands for a 100+ yr. oldstructure that has lost a significant amount of its capacity due to corrosion.

    The load combination of LRT and Upper Deck SUP, with or without lower deckwidening (Option 2 or 3) overloads the substructure such that all land foundationswould need to be investigated and strengthened/underpinned. It is recommendedthat neither Option 2 or 3 is viable / NOT feasible for this reason.

    The load combination of LRT and Upper Deck SUP, with or without lower deckwidening (Option 2 or 3) overloads the superstructure such that about 50% of all thetruss members would need to be strengthened or replaced. We recommend thatdue to the extensive strengthening required to support the proposed loading, andgiven the age of the bridge, this option is not practical / NOT feasible.
    (All from the previously linked Stantec report)
    No, I didn't read their report, but I also didn't say the bridge in its current condition, I realize there has been deterioration. I don't know if it is the City's intention to let the bridge deteriorate further and then just eventually demolish it, but I doubt it. In case you missed it earlier, I expect at some point in the future work will be needed to maintain and perhaps upgrade it anyways.

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    We should rule out the High Level Bridge as an LRT route due to the existing LRT bridge running at just 40% capacity just a stone's throw away. We shouldn't need an engineering report on the bridge to realize that LRT shouldn't go there.

    My optimistic half hopes that admin invented this new bridge plan as a way to drive up costs to the point where they're ridiculous and get the idea of another LRT crossing here wiped off the long term plan for good.

    My Cynical half suspect that city council could take an intentionally sandbagged bad idea and think it's a great plan.
    My cynical side has also observed that city council has a weakness for bad ideas too. I think it comes from a view from a number on council that the internal "experts" should not be questioned, a lack of critical thinking by council and perhaps a failure to realize the city bureaucracy has its own agenda which sometimes involves empire building and making things bigger and more complicated than really necessary.

  72. #272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    In case you missed it earlier, I expect at some point in the future work will be needed to maintain and perhaps upgrade it anyways.
    I didn't miss it, I just ignored it because that was covered in the Stantec report as well. What you're proposing has been deemed impractical by Stantec.

    In 1995, the structure was rehabilitated with a desire to extend life by an additional 50 yrs.(i.e. to 2045). The current LRT Design Guidelines require a design service life of 100 years.i.e. 2130 if completed in 2030. This is a demanding requirement that is not practical for a100-yr. old structure with existing damage due to corrosion, uncertain future deterioration, and fatigue issues. Given the City’s current maintenance effort on HLB, a design life to 2045 is achievable for current loading, and there is margin of safety because the structure is not stressed to the limit under current loading. If the structure condition deteriorates, design (truck) loading can be reduced without impacting general use of the bridge. With nominal LRT loading the strengthened structure would be more highly stressed; the only option to reduce loads would be to restrict LRT loading,which is not desirable. In our opinion the desired 100 yr. service life cannot be achieved with any certainty.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  73. #273

    Default

    Keep in mind that the report only addresses the capacity of the bridge plus two wide multi-use paths. There's no doubt that the additional weight of the wide cantilever that such a plan would require would be substantially more than what would be required just to retrofit two minimal LRT tracks with no widening.

    I'm glad they did, though. Improving the multi-use paths to exceed minimum standards is much more important on this corridor than duplicating LRT infrastructure.
    There can only be one.

  74. #274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Keep in mind that the report only addresses the capacity of the bridge plus two wide multi-use paths.
    Nope.

    Scope of Work
    In May 2017, the City of Edmonton retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to perform aconcept level feasibility study and bridge modification strategy assessment of High Level Bridge(HLB) for a limited number of potential modifications for multi-modal usage, as follows:
    1. Widening of sidewalks on the lower deck to 4.2m clear width (Option 1);
    2. Addition of two (2) LRT tracks and two (2) 4.2m wide Shared Use Paths on the top deck(Option 2);
    3. Combination of both scenarios 1 and 2 (Option 3).

    A review of the feasibility of widening the south approach sidewalks to accompany thesescenarios was also included in the assessment, and all options were considered such that theexisting vehicle travel lanes on the lower deck will be maintained. Limited inspection andanalysis was provided only to support conceptual level findings and costing.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  75. #275

    Default

    Yep.

    2. Option 2 (Option 3 similar)

    The load combination of two LRT tracks and wide Upper Deck SUP (Option 2 or 3)
    exceeds the total baseline service load for the substructure and superstructure by
    26% and over 70% respectively. These are significant demands for a 100+ yr. old
    structure that has lost a significant amount of its capacity due to corrosion.

    The load combination of LRT and Upper Deck SUP, with or without lower deck
    widening (Option 2 or 3) overloads the substructure such that all land foundations
    would need to be investigated and strengthened/underpinned. ....

    ...


    Option 1 is widening lower level paths only, with no LRT.

    There is no option that is just LRT.

    There can only be one.

  76. #276
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Pretty much what the stantec report says....
    Exactly what the report said. Centre LRT line=bad idea imo.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  77. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Yep.

    Option 1 is widening lower level paths only, with no LRT.

    There is no option that is just LRT.

    But you said it was just +paths. When it's not, it's +paths (1) or +LRT+paths (2), or +paths+LRT+paths (3).
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  78. #278

    Default

    Ah, I guess I missed a few words there.

    Should have been:

    Keep in mind that the report only addresses the capacity of the bridge with LRT plus two wide multi-use paths. There's no doubt that the additional weight of the wide cantilever that such a plan would require would be substantially more than what would be required just to retrofit two minimal LRT tracks with no widening.
    Point is there's no option to add only LRT

    Edit:

    IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS "CENTRAL LRT" PLAN!!!

    ALL MY POSTS IN THE "CENTRE LRT" THREAD SHOULD BE READ WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY RELATE TO THE TOPIC AT HAND!!!!
    Last edited by Highlander II; 15-02-2018 at 01:08 PM. Reason: Response to exquisite pedantry
    There can only be one.

  79. #279

    Default

    Still not right, as option 1 has no LRT, just two paths, but yeah we're deep in the semantic weeds at this point.

    Option 1: Widened existing paths
    Option 2: LRT up top with new paths adjacent
    Option 3: COMBO PLATTER!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  80. #280

    Default

    Back in the day, I was a construction inspector for CN's Construction dept. Mostly, I supervised the construction/refurbishing of railroad bridges. I figure that a proper refurbishment of the HL bridge, such that a prudent engineer would approve it to carry trains for 100 years, would be very involved and extremely expensive. Firstly, the bridge would be shut down for 2 or more years. The concrete sidewalks and car deck get removed. Every truss member and connecting plate gets inspected, likely resulting in the need to remove corrosion and add steel plates to all the existing truss members and replace all the connecting plates. Every rivet gets replaced with a bolt. We are talking about thousands of tons of steel. The concrete foundations and bearing plates would all need inspection and reinforcing or replacing. The large piers in the river would need to be clad with an outer covering of concrete, supported by new piles in the riverbed, and tied into the existing piers with rebar. The smaller concrete bases on the banks would likely need underpinning and reinforcement of some kind. The steel supports above these bank foundations would also need inspection and likely strengthening/reinforcement. Could it be done? No doubt. Will it be done? We have a council that won't spend $24000 a year to keep a pool in front of city hall. I can't even imagine a scenario where a council would write a blank cheque to refurbish the HL bridge as described above.

  81. #281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    In case you missed it earlier, I expect at some point in the future work will be needed to maintain and perhaps upgrade it anyways.
    I didn't miss it, I just ignored it because that was covered in the Stantec report as well. What you're proposing has been deemed impractical by Stantec.

    In 1995, the structure was rehabilitated with a desire to extend life by an additional 50 yrs.(i.e. to 2045). The current LRT Design Guidelines require a design service life of 100 years.i.e. 2130 if completed in 2030. This is a demanding requirement that is not practical for a100-yr. old structure with existing damage due to corrosion, uncertain future deterioration, and fatigue issues. Given the City’s current maintenance effort on HLB, a design life to 2045 is achievable for current loading, and there is margin of safety because the structure is not stressed to the limit under current loading. If the structure condition deteriorates, design (truck) loading can be reduced without impacting general use of the bridge. With nominal LRT loading the strengthened structure would be more highly stressed; the only option to reduce loads would be to restrict LRT loading,which is not desirable. In our opinion the desired 100 yr. service life cannot be achieved with any certainty.
    Now, I am not an engineer so humour me a bit ok. I assume there is a difference between not possible and not practical. I am guessing that not practical is based on estimated costs, so Stantec must have figures for that somewhere. Also what happens in 2045, do we just tear down the High Level bridge or spend absolutely no further money on it? I am guessing not - it is a historic structure and money will likely be spent to maintain it and extend its life.

    Therefore in my mind there are three costs here:
    A. Costs to maintain the High Level bridge
    B. Costs to upgrade the High Level bridge and
    C. Cost to build new LRT bridge

    A and B are related and may exceed C, but if A is required anyways, then only B and C are relevant to this decision. Does Stantec give figures for A, B and C?

  82. #282

    Default

    ^You could just read the link that was posted.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  83. #283
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldergrove View Post
    Back in the day, I was a construction inspector for CN's Construction dept. Mostly, I supervised the construction/refurbishing of railroad bridges. I figure that a proper refurbishment of the HL bridge, such that a prudent engineer would approve it to carry trains for 100 years, would be very involved and extremely expensive. Firstly, the bridge would be shut down for 2 or more years. The concrete sidewalks and car deck get removed. Every truss member and connecting plate gets inspected, likely resulting in the need to remove corrosion and add steel plates to all the existing truss members and replace all the connecting plates. Every rivet gets replaced with a bolt. We are talking about thousands of tons of steel. The concrete foundations and bearing plates would all need inspection and reinforcing or replacing. The large piers in the river would need to be clad with an outer covering of concrete, supported by new piles in the riverbed, and tied into the existing piers with rebar. The smaller concrete bases on the banks would likely need underpinning and reinforcement of some kind. The steel supports above these bank foundations would also need inspection and likely strengthening/reinforcement. Could it be done? No doubt. Will it be done? We have a council that won't spend $24000 a year to keep a pool in front of city hall. I can't even imagine a scenario where a council would write a blank cheque to refurbish the HL bridge as described above.
    I'm no engineer but I can't even imagine what all that extra steel will do to the foundation of the original cement holding the HL bridge up.

    Its off topic but since you mentioned it, coe wont spend wont spend $24k/year for the pool but will sure go ahead and put art projects up costing even more money elsewhere.

    Speaking of bridges I haven't hear but are there any art projects being attached to the new Waterdale bridge?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  84. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    ^You could just read the link that was posted.
    Yes, I could and I suppose anyone else could too. As a citizen I'm more interested in the cost aspects here and those seem to be buried in this discussion. Usually if something is expensive, the first thing opponents do is put a big cost figure in bold print, so I wonder if cost is an issue here.

  85. #285
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    IMO Dave, it is more a decision based on a law of diminishing returns. I'm sure that a creative solution could come to pass, but is it worth the effort (both empirically and socially) and expenditures? That is the bane of most of these projects looking to use bygone infrastructure designed for a different time in a future context. Anachronistic placement defined.

    The HLB is one of the most studied historic pieces of infrastructure in the city, so I'm confident in saying that the concerns are valid. Many projects have looked to re purpose the HLB, and all have stalled.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  86. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    ^You could just read the link that was posted.
    Yes, I could and I suppose anyone else could too. As a citizen I'm more interested in the cost aspects here and those seem to be buried in this discussion. Usually if something is expensive, the first thing opponents do is put a big cost figure in bold print, so I wonder if cost is an issue here.
    No one can put an accurate cost on refurbishing the bridge at the moment. Stantec more or less stated in their report summary that they only performed a cursory inspection. In order to come up with a reasonable estimate to refurbish the bridge, they would need to do a lengthy and comprehensive investigation of the bridge's condition. No one is going to pay for that until it is needed.

  87. #287

    Default

    ~$24M to widen the sidewalks is the only cost Stantec was comfortable enough with to put into the executive summary (and even then they state it's +/- 50% due to the unknown status of the bridge).

    Trying to find the whole enchilada but no luck searching on SIRE.
    Last edited by noodle; 15-02-2018 at 02:12 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  88. #288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    IMO Dave, it is more a decision based on a law of diminishing returns. I'm sure that a creative solution could come to pass, but is it worth the effort (both empirically and socially) and expenditures? That is the bane of most of these projects looking to use bygone infrastructure designed for a different time in a future context. Anachronistic placement defined.

    The HLB is one of the most studied historic pieces of infrastructure in the city, so I'm confident in saying that the concerns are valid. Many projects have looked to re purpose the HLB, and all have stalled.
    You might be right. As I said before I am not an engineer and I know there are people who know more about that than me. However, I am asking questions here because I get the sense we are moving perhaps too quickly to the new bridge option and ruling out an existing one. Sometimes when you do that, you miss things and even people who are knowledgeable in the field don't catch or consider something, but hey we've never had a snafu with infrastructure in Edmonton have we?

  89. #289

    Default

    From the Stantec report it's abundantly clear that any attempts to salvage the HLB for transit service would turn the bridge into a Ship of Theseus.

    If we have to replace the substructure, superstructure & trusses, are we really "saving" the bridge? What do we do while the bridge is shut down for multiple years to be deconstructed & reconstructed in-situ?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  90. #290
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,994

    Default

    A few of my thoughts on the central circulator.

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1162439235926
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  91. #291
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    ^ That was a good interview Ian. Would the use of the HL bridge in your proposal include the existing land/tracks are on behind the AEB?

    Just wondering, are you connected in anyway with Yardstick on 104th street?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  92. #292
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I think the second line to the U of A is already duplication in service. The #4 and #7 could be upgraded.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  93. #293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    From the Stantec report it's abundantly clear that any attempts to salvage the HLB for transit service would turn the bridge into a Ship of Theseus.

    If we have to replace the substructure, superstructure & trusses, are we really "saving" the bridge? What do we do while the bridge is shut down for multiple years to be deconstructed & reconstructed in-situ?
    Lol - we would be saving nothing, and spending a ton of cash. I understand the HLB is an iconic bridge for ALL Edmontonians.. but at what point in time do we come to terms with the fact that it is simply an old school steel truss bridge, that has served its time and then some. Don't get me wrong, I love the LED lights, the street car, and the general look and feel of the HLB. BUT if it isn't cost effective to save, we should remove and replace it.

    The alternative, is building another bridge in between the two for LRT only.. Like I mentioned above, if we assume marginal population growth and development down town over the next 50 years - the HLB will have to be removed and replaced anyways to deal with growing traffic.

  94. #294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think the second line to the U of A is already duplication in service. The #4 and #7 could be upgraded.
    Agreed. You could increase service on Whyte Ave in general by not having buses convoying together, as noted on another thread. You could also split Route 7 in two, with one bus maintaining current frequency from Jasper Place to MacEwan, and with another bus running the MacEwan-Downtown-Whyte Ave-UofA route at increased frequency. The MacEwan to UofA portion currently takes under a half hour to run. You can maintain current 4 service, but run a route 400 SuperExpress with stops running West Ed-South Campus-UofA-109th st-104 st-99 st-91 st (Campus St. Jean) - Bonnie Doon Mall. The MacEwan-DT-Whyte-UofA 7 increased frequency route would be almost as good as an LRT circulator line at a fraction of the cost and disruption. And the increased frequency of the 7 stub route and adding the 400 route would greatly improve the overall transit service on Whyte Ave without the disruption of LRT.

  95. #295
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lvngstn View Post
    The alternative, is building another bridge in between the two for LRT only.. Like I mentioned above, if we assume marginal population growth and development down town over the next 50 years - the HLB will have to be removed and replaced anyways to deal with growing traffic.
    The "middle bridge" doesn't even have to be strictly for LRT. The fact is that the HLB is not a great bridge for motorists either. Its entrances and exits are really weird. When I ride the bus across it, it doesn't feel like an easy crossing in the way that a proper traffic bridge does.

    If the HLB is preserved for sentimental reasons, it could be kept as a touristy bridge. Multi-use trail and the trolleys. I think that has a worth but I can't tell if the cost is too much for something like that.

  96. #296
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lvngstn View Post
    The alternative, is building another bridge in between the two for LRT only.. Like I mentioned above, if we assume marginal population growth and development down town over the next 50 years - the HLB will have to be removed and replaced anyways to deal with growing traffic.
    The "middle bridge" doesn't even have to be strictly for LRT. The fact is that the HLB is not a great bridge for motorists either. Its entrances and exits are really weird. When I ride the bus across it, it doesn't feel like an easy crossing in the way that a proper traffic bridge does.

    If the HLB is preserved for sentimental reasons, it could be kept as a touristy bridge. Multi-use trail and the trolleys. I think that has a worth but I can't tell if the cost is too much for something like that.
    I completely agree, although with 109th North and South of the river I think the new bridge has to be East of the current bridge, not between the HLB and Menzies if it's going to be used for vehicular traffic. Straighten out that thoroughfare. Dig it down a bit more if we're worried about a new bridge affecting the view of the current bridge.

  97. #297

    Default

    Why are we still even talking about going over the high level and then down the old CP single track to 104 st? The HLB is done so far as carrying lrt goes, as made abundantly clear in Stantec's executive summary. Taking the old CPR route misses the opportunity to service the Uof A, the Health Sciences buildings and the people living in the apartments just off Whyte ave between 112th and 104 streets. This area is growing in density as evidenced by the projects currently under construction in the 106 to 108 st area, so why bypass it in preference for a route 3 blocks north that travels through a quiet residential area? Saying that the the proposed line is duplicating service to the U of A is like saying the Valley Line duplicates service to downtown.
    Last edited by Aldergrove; 16-02-2018 at 10:58 AM.

  98. #298
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    I'm all in favour of the LRT but I'm struggling to find the reasoning behind this one. There's issues I'm not comfortable with, like the expense of upgrades to the HLB or adding a new bridge even. That's just for starters. Then there's extending this line down Whyte Ave compromising sidewalk and businesses. Also Centre LRT line will be impacting a busy Calgary Trail and Gateway BLV, both very busy streets as it runs across Mill creek ravine. The coe is now suggesting the ravine is open for development as it is with a new upscale home. How many more of these homes will be added before the beauty of this ravine is eroded away? This line will need two bridges one for when it crosses the ravine the other for the HLB $ching, $ching, never mind the traffic congestion at Bonnie Doon. All for what to connect downtown to Valley line? Churchill station will serve that anyway. As I mentioned in the WLRT thread my mood on this line changes like the weather. Right now I'm waiting for a warming trend.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  99. #299
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    The U of A is already serviced by the Capital line as it is. Centre LRT is more like a luxury item. Is it really needed?
    Last edited by envaneo; 16-02-2018 at 11:18 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  100. #300
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    The question isn't if it's needed now, it's if it's needed in 20, 30, 40yrs. We have a lot of runway here to get it right.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •