Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: High Level Line

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,374

    Default High Level Line

    Website:
    https://www.highlevelline.com/

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...lley-1.4350604

    A local collective has a bold new vision for central Edmonton that includes a park that would connect downtown with Whyte Avenue.
    Architect Michael Zabinski, along with a group of young creative and design professionals, has been working on the High Level Line project for a year.
    Their proposal includes a four-kilometre park made up of pedestrian paths, a cycling network, and a streetcar to connect downtown to Whyte Avenue, putting a fresh, user-friendly spin on the neighbourhoods between them.
    "We are a city with two really awesome cultural centres, downtown and Whyte Avenue," said Zabinski.
    "And for the longest time, people have gone to Whyte or they go downtown. What's missing is the link between the two — the urban thread that makes central Edmonton one place and one destination, that connects the city's two centres and creates a dynamic experience between the two."
    The park would run from MacEwan University all the way to Whyte Avenue at 104th Street. The plan calls for a transformation of the North Saskatchewan River valley, and the neighbourhoods of Strathcona, Garneau, Grandin and Oliver.
    Looking south on top of the High Level Bridge.

    People would be able to walk, cycle or take the streetcar from one end to the other. It's an ambitious idea that would require a significant amount of new infrastructure, Zabinski said.
    "It's really about blending those three ways of moving, and creating an experience that doesn't sacrifice any one of them," he said.
    The High Level Line collective on Wednesday made public a portfolio of its designs, including park-lined pathways atop the High Level Bridge, an expanded Ezio Faraone Park, and a new multi-modal bridge at Jasper Avenue and 110th Street.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  2. #2

    Default

    Parks are nice but I’d say adding more retail shopping, restaurants, etc. south of Jasper Ave along 109 Street should be a priority in tying together the downtown and Whyte Ave. The street car would be a fantastic way to complete a triangular loop bringing people back downtown from east Whyte or taking them there so they could shop their way west and north and back downtown on foot.
    Last edited by KC; 12-10-2017 at 08:04 AM.

  3. #3
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,425

    Default

    Killer idea and design suggestions.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Killer idea and design suggestions.
    Hmm. That has the air of a backhanded compliment.

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    nah...I think IanO's being sincere. It is a neat idea.

    I'm curious as to the re-emergence of the 110 street bridge. Now the old CP bridge was a nightmare in the winter, so this would have to avoid pillars on the road. Also, is there an expectation that the streetcar would extend over it?

    As for the streetcars... they are novel, but they are also a novelty. They are long since retired, maintained as a tourist idea by volunteers. Expanding this to fit the vision of this idea would require a lot more maintenance, infrastructure, employees vs volunteers, insurance, etc.
    Onward and upward

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    nah...I think IanO's being sincere. It is a neat idea.

    I'm curious as to the re-emergence of the 110 street bridge. Now the old CP bridge was a nightmare in the winter, so this would have to avoid pillars on the road. Also, is there an expectation that the streetcar would extend over it?

    As for the streetcars... they are novel, but they are also a novelty. They are long since retired, maintained as a tourist idea by volunteers. Expanding this to fit the vision of this idea would require a lot more maintenance, infrastructure, employees vs volunteers, insurance, etc.
    If if created a vibrant, profitable area I’m sure some sort of arrangement could be made to fund any added costs.


    It was a real pity that a couple decades ago when all that land on the west side of 109 st between Jasper Ave and 104 Ave was vacant bare land there were good infrastructure upgrade options staring everyone in the face but instead all we got was the slapping down of more development.

    They could have integrated the transportation infrastructure (rail and road) by one, adding a diagonal link between 103rd Ave to 104 Ave to the west. This would have split road traffic and enhanced the viability of all the real estate along 103 Ave downtown. Two, the old bridge could have been replaced with an above grade rail bridge over Jasper and following the old rail lines north but then turning east near 103rd Ave. to later connect with the LRT (say at the new arena station so people could hop on a streetcar to the Leg. And on to Whyte Ave after visiting the Citadel, City Hall, Art Gallery, snd now RAM and arena...)

    Also 102 could possibly have been routed north as well, or punched through to connect with itself to eventually have an express route along 102 from 124 st right into the downtown.

    Like the west side along 109 St south of Jasper Ave now, vacant land creates long term traffic routing options that should be considered before just dropping buildings on the empty land.
    Last edited by KC; 12-10-2017 at 10:04 AM.

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    Great idea! The streetcar route would be a good addition to ETS services if it ran regularly, and the development of the upper level of the bridge would fix the mess that the cables made on the high level bridge sidewalks. The Jasper Av bridge would also provide a much better solution to crossing Jasper Av as a pedestrian or cyclist. We would still need to get MacEwan to take down the ugly fence to connect it up with 105 Av and the rest of the North side though: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.54824...7i13312!8i6656

  8. #8

    Default

    There is already a high level tram. I think to make it actually useful, just putting more greenery around it won't do much. It needs to further, right up into, say, Railtown, or a link at Corona or Grandin station. Or the build out of the LRT connector that was talked about. If this does that, then it its a good thing, but if it remains roughly where it is, a hidden gem, not much will change.
    Last edited by moahunter; 12-10-2017 at 10:24 AM.

  9. #9
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Killer idea and design suggestions.
    Hmm. That has the air of a backhanded compliment.
    100% support for this. That is perhaps the most critical linkage in our city and needs to be enhanced. I absolutely love it.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #10
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    As much as I like the concept, the design does seem to have at least two potentially fatal flaws.

    I love the existing street car. What I most like about it are the unobstructed views from the top deck of the High Level Bridge.

    While the High Level Bridge rail deck could be wide enough to accommodate a multi-use trail and a street car, didn't the City just spend millions of dollars on suicide barriers for the High Level road deck? Wouldn't similar suicide barriers need to then be installed on the rail deck were it to open to pedestrians and cyclists thereby obstructing the existing unobstructed views from the street car?

    The second flaw is that the Strathcona Tunnel is barely wide enough to accommodate the existing street car let alone a multi-use trail as is envisaged in the proposal. How could a multi-use trail possibly be accommodated in the tunnel?

    I have emailed these questions to the proponents of this redesign but thought maybe someone on this board could also answer them.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 12-10-2017 at 10:40 AM. Reason: eliminate repetitive statement

  11. #11

    Default

    Proper suicide barriers extending out at an angle from the lower deck could also protect the upper deck, the top of the barrier would be near the level of the upper deck and 6-8' out, so you wouldn't be able to easily jump over from the top deck.

    I wonder about the tunnel width too. It was designed for freight cars that are like to 10' wide and can be really long so they sweep corners - there will be some spare room with just a 8' wide streetcar, but I doubt it would be enough for a sae path - you would still need some space on the other side, plus ~6' for a minimum path, much wider if you want to accommodate bikes comfortably.

    I really like the treatments at jasper ave, and at the north end of the bridge, although that one would be extremely expensive.

    And while they say in the presentation that future LRT could be accommodated on the lower level, there's no way that would actually happen. If they do this proposal that's then end any plans for additional transit on HLB, just buses and a streetcar (of some kind) forever.
    There can only be one.

  12. #12
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,425

    Default

    That level of detail is way to micro at the moment... this is very much a broad conceptual plan.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  13. #13
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    If if created a vibrant, profitable area I’m sure some sort of arrangement could be made to fund any added costs.


    It was a real pity that a couple decades ago when(...).
    I'll snip the quote there because that is the only truth needed. The whole access from the south is pathetic, and a Walt Jr. doesn't do much else except give us a nice bridge with better load capacity. A couple decades ago...when there was the outcry for better airport access etc...and the urbanists were spouting off poppycock like "managed congestion" forcing people to transit...we should have done most if not all of what you suggest. At the very least...reserve a ROW.

    Too late now.
    Onward and upward

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There is already a high level tram. I think to make it actually useful, just putting more greenery around it won't do much. It needs to further, right up into, say, Railtown, or a link at Corona or Grandin station. Or the build out of the LRT connector that was talked about. If this does that, then it its a good thing, but if it remains roughly where it is, a hidden gem, not much will change.
    There is a decent connection at Grandin Station. The problem is that it comes once every 40 minutes, there's no transfer and it travels at barely more than a walking pace. I have no problem with the heritage streetcar, but I would rather see it augmenting a usable streetcar (every to minutes and twice as fast) on this route.
    There can only be one.

  15. #15
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    As much as I like the concept, the design does seem to have at least two potentially fatal flaws.

    (...)

    The second flaw is that the Strathcona Tunnel is barely wide enough to accommodate the existing street car let alone a multi-use trail as is envisaged in the proposal. How could a multi-use trail possibly be accommodated in the tunnel?

    I have emailed these questions to the proponents of this redesign but thought maybe someone on this board could also answer them.
    It doesn't. That is why this very idea was shelved a few times before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Proper suicide barriers extending out at an angle from the lower deck could also protect the upper deck, the top of the barrier would be near the level of the upper deck and 6-8' out, so you wouldn't be able to easily jump over from the top deck.

    I wonder about the tunnel width too. It was designed for freight cars that are like to 10' wide and can be really long so they sweep corners - there will be some spare room with just a 8' wide streetcar, but I doubt it would be enough for a sae path - you would still need some space on the other side, plus ~6' for a minimum path, much wider if you want to accommodate bikes comfortably.

    I really like the treatments at jasper ave, and at the north end of the bridge, although that one would be extremely expensive.

    And while they say in the presentation that future LRT could be accommodated on the lower level, there's no way that would actually happen. If they do this proposal that's then end any plans for additional transit on HLB, just buses and a streetcar (of some kind) forever.
    Agreed...
    Onward and upward

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    (...). I have no problem with the heritage streetcar, but I would rather see it augmenting a usable streetcar (every to minutes and twice as fast) on this route.
    It would have to be a modern streetcar. The heritage ones were taken out of service for a reason. Parts are no longer readily available, the technology is old and often inefficient, and if you are doing a high frequency route, you would want your rolling stock to be as ubiquitous as possible to save on procurement/maintenance/training costs.
    Onward and upward

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There is already a high level tram. I think to make it actually useful, just putting more greenery around it won't do much. It needs to further, right up into, say, Railtown, or a link at Corona or Grandin station. Or the build out of the LRT connector that was talked about. If this does that, then it its a good thing, but if it remains roughly where it is, a hidden gem, not much will change.
    There is a decent connection at Grandin Station. The problem is that it comes once every 40 minutes, there's no transfer and it travels at barely more than a walking pace. I have no problem with the heritage streetcar, but I would rather see it augmenting a usable streetcar (every to minutes and twice as fast) on this route.
    I disagree a little bit - its a short walk (outside), and I've noticed people don't do walking, especially in winter. I know about the high level because I used to live a few blocks from it, but most people don't, and unless its genuinely connected into the transport network, that won't change.

  18. #18

    Default

    The Siemen's low floor LRT Prototype the Edmonton Radial Railway Society used to run before sending it home to a museum in Germany fit through the Stathcona tunnel without issue. You could probably tack on a couple of extra cars to the Millwoods line order to increase the HL line frequency. I don't think you could increase the speed though, as that's mostly limited by traffic and pedestrian interaction.

  19. #19
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    ^Running a street car through the Strathcona tunnel is not the problem. Accommodating a multi-use trail and a street car in the tunnel is.

  20. #20

    Default

    I'm also dubious about the existing tunnel... are they proposing to widen it?

    Also, it is quite long and would require 1-2 security guards to hinder crime and vandalism as well as closure after hours. Staffing costs money, says Captain Obvious.

    There aren't any good options at the intersection of 109 st. and Sask. Drive.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There is already a high level tram. I think to make it actually useful, just putting more greenery around it won't do much. It needs to further, right up into, say, Railtown, or a link at Corona or Grandin station. Or the build out of the LRT connector that was talked about. If this does that, then it its a good thing, but if it remains roughly where it is, a hidden gem, not much will change.
    There is a decent connection at Grandin Station. The problem is that it comes once every 40 minutes, there's no transfer and it travels at barely more than a walking pace. I have no problem with the heritage streetcar, but I would rather see it augmenting a usable streetcar (every to minutes and twice as fast) on this route.
    I disagree a little bit - its a short walk (outside), and I've noticed people don't do walking, especially in winter. I know about the high level because I used to live a few blocks from it, but most people don't, and unless its genuinely connected into the transport network, that won't change.
    You can make the walk inside most of the way along the Legislature pedway from Grandin Station. Just take the stairwell labelled 109th street Westbound exit. I'll suggest to the city they should put signage for the street car on the sign Unfortunately, the mobility challenged will have to walk a bit longer from the Grandin exit at Monsignor William Irwin Park, as that's the closest entrance with escalators and elevators. Even then, its only 150 metres to the stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Google Maps
    Last edited by Ustauk; 12-10-2017 at 11:58 AM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^Running a street car through the Strathcona tunnel is not the problem. Accommodating a multi-use trail and a street car in the tunnel is.
    I was more posting that in relation to the request to increase line frequency with modern stock, and wanted to point out we could use it on the line. I agree that, as you stated, the tunnel is way too narrow to accommodate both the streetcar and a bike/pedestrain trail. Would it be feasible to widen the tunnel?

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There is already a high level tram. I think to make it actually useful, just putting more greenery around it won't do much. It needs to further, right up into, say, Railtown, or a link at Corona or Grandin station. Or the build out of the LRT connector that was talked about. If this does that, then it its a good thing, but if it remains roughly where it is, a hidden gem, not much will change.
    There is a decent connection at Grandin Station. The problem is that it comes once every 40 minutes, there's no transfer and it travels at barely more than a walking pace. I have no problem with the heritage streetcar, but I would rather see it augmenting a usable streetcar (every to minutes and twice as fast) on this route.
    I disagree a little bit - its a short walk (outside), and I've noticed people don't do walking, especially in winter. I know about the high level because I used to live a few blocks from it, but most people don't, and unless its genuinely connected into the transport network, that won't change.
    There's an entrance to the pedway that goes from grandin station to the Leg plaza literally right there, and then you walk underground. It couldn't be any more convenient with the two lines in their current locations.

    The station stair entrance is a little to far from the Streetcar to be a great waiting place, and that's the real problem - the 40 minute wait for a slow streetcar.
    There can only be one.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    The Siemen's low floor LRT Prototype the Edmonton Radial Railway Society used to run before sending it home to a museum in Germany fit through the Stathcona tunnel without issue. You could probably tack on a couple of extra cars to the Millwoods line order to increase the HL line frequency. I don't think you could increase the speed though, as that's mostly limited by traffic and pedestrian interaction.
    Speed is mostly limited by the quality of the tracks and the equipment they run, and the fact that it's supposed to be a scenic tour, not a trip. Their track maintenance is basically nil, which is fine for 10-15km/hr or whatever they top out at, but not good enough for even a local transit route. Yes, you would probably need some new traffic lights to go faster but 30-40km/hr would be safe away from the stations where they currently have no separation from pedestrians. That would be fast enough to make it a worthwhile transit connection.
    There can only be one.

  25. #25

    Default

    ^that would be faster than the average speed of the NY subway which is 17mph.

  26. #26

    Default

    30-40 would be top speed on the streetcar, not average. Our LRT has a top operational speed of 70 but still averages under 40 thanks to stops. A 35km/hr streetcar might average 25 with fairly wide stop spacing like this, but that's enough to be competitive with a bike, or with driving at busy times.
    There can only be one.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    The Siemen's low floor LRT Prototype the Edmonton Radial Railway Society used to run before sending it home to a museum in Germany fit through the Stathcona tunnel without issue. You could probably tack on a couple of extra cars to the Millwoods line order to increase the HL line frequency. I don't think you could increase the speed though, as that's mostly limited by traffic and pedestrian interaction.
    Speed is mostly limited by the quality of the tracks and the equipment they run, and the fact that it's supposed to be a scenic tour, not a trip. Their track maintenance is basically nil, which is fine for 10-15km/hr or whatever they top out at, but not good enough for even a local transit route. Yes, you would probably need some new traffic lights to go faster but 30-40km/hr would be safe away from the stations where they currently have no separation from pedestrians. That would be fast enough to make it a worthwhile transit connection.
    You could increase the speed if you were just using the street car for transit. With the High Level Line plan, however, you have the potential for bicycle and pedestrian interaction the whole way along. You'd have to keep the speed down to accommodate for that, anyways.

  28. #28

    Default

    That's the question, I guess. It looks like these designers were planning on an excursion streetcar, not a transit streetcar. Their rail-based pop-up shops are a little off-the wall, but if they actually happen there would be switches at each siding location too, so that would also slow things down.

    If there's no separation at all, and people are expected to wander across the streetcar space when it's not there then you're right. If that only occurs in a few station locations and for the rest there is minimal separation, like a small boulevard or curb then 30-40 should be fine. After all, we seem to have no problem with sidewalks right next to 60km/hr motor traffic.
    There can only be one.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,399

    Default

    Don't want to throw cold water on this, (sigh), but it seems fraught with too many issues - one being that the province actually owns the rights to the top deck for potential high speed rail.

    Not that we'll ever see HSR in my lifetime.

    Rather, love to see extension and improvements to the existing shared path from Railtown to the bridge and across the existing lower deck paired with improvements (not sure how) to the crossing at Saskatchewan Drive.

    Now, that might leave money for a gondola crossing?
    ... gobsmacked

  30. #30

    Default

    Hrm. I would rather see the top of the High Level used for an express LRT (120 km/h top speed) out to the airport. Terminus station between 98 and 99 Ave (easy access to Grandin station and pedways to Legislature), cut and cover for the stretch between Strathcona tunnel and Whyte with the portal just south of Whyte and east of 103 St. Follow the rails all the way to the airport and put any high speed rail station out there. Would also serve as a commuter line for Leduc since Leduc transit already runs buses to the airport.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Don't want to throw cold water on this, (sigh), but it seems fraught with too many issues - one being that the province actually owns the rights to the top deck for potential high speed rail.
    Hopefully its just volunteer effort that has been wasted on this then, not actual city dollars (although I believe the downtown circulator was also proposed for the high level). While HSR may or may not happen one day, the province has jealously guarded the right to do it, and has continually taken steps to secure ROW for it. Its unlikely they are going to give that up now.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    Here we go with the HSR again. If HSR is run downtown to downtown, it would need to be fully grade separated in the city for safety reasons, and preferably underground for noise and visual reasons. That makes the upper deck of the high level a poor choice. It would also be very expensive, which makes a YEG - YYC route with ordinary LRT connections into both cities the only one that might actually have a chance of happening. Perhaps now is a good time to try to convince the province of this.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^Running a street car through the Strathcona tunnel is not the problem. Accommodating a multi-use trail and a street car in the tunnel is.
    I was more posting that in relation to the request to increase line frequency with modern stock, and wanted to point out we could use it on the line. I agree that, as you stated, the tunnel is way too narrow to accommodate both the streetcar and a bike/pedestrain trail. Would it be feasible to widen the tunnel?
    Why not look at a more 21st Century idea of an automated people mover that is smaller scale and that can handle 10,000 passengers per day. One narrow enough and automated to have the vehicles timed to use a single track in the tunnel section while an opposite vehicle waits momentarily.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniMetro




    It would be great if they had a restaurant or cafe in the middle of the bridge.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #34

    Default

    ^21st century doesn't need the guide rails (1950's technology), if you want a small automated system, just buy tesla's and put autopilot on. Or a buy a bus and put autopilot in it. Or you can upgrade the track that's already there, and put LRT on it, which is already there (albeit at slow speeds).

  35. #35

    Default

    Small-vehicle automated transit has no benefit on a route like this where the vehicles would need to platoon through the single-lane or single track sections anyway.

    Here's a possibility that I hadn't thought of before....

    What if you could double-stack the tunnel, and have Streetcar below and pedestrians/cyclists above? I know that's what skytrain does in Vancouver to allow for 2 skytrain tracks in an old single-track freight tunnel. Even low-floor LRT might be a bit taller than skytrain thanks to the pantograph and other stuff on the roof despite the lower floor, but the tunnel might be something like 18-20' high, it was built for heavy freight trains.
    There can only be one.

  36. #36

    Default

    The point is that we should think out of the box. Either a aerial gondola from Whyte and 103rd directly north to Downtown or some simple automated peoplemover via the HLB.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  37. #37

    Default

    ^ I've always championed the idea of a gondola from Jasper (current ETS station across the funicular) to where the Whyte Ave toilets are with a single stop at Rossdale/ Remax Field in between. Just never had the time to pitch it to council.

  38. #38

    Default

    They probably could get one privately built and run if they put out a RFP. Even a privately built system would cost about $20 or $30 million.

    The only problem is that if the COE Administration does not want to support it, they will make the specifications so high and cost the proposal at $200 million just to kill the idea.

    Color me jaded but that's how they kill good ideas.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,443

    Default

    Looking at the drawings of the streetcar track, the tunnel under 109 Street may be too narrow for any kind of park.

    I think the city needs some kind of confirmation for LRT needs across the High Level Bridge.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

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
  •