News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

EllisDon to Lead Prairie Link High-Speed Rail Partners - Edm-RD-Cal

For reasons discussed on this forum (age, historical resource and viability for HSR), any HSR to downtown might need another river crossing.
 
The_Cat said:
For reasons discussed on this forum (age, historical resource and viability for HSR), any HSR to downtown might need another river crossing.
Click to expand...
We need a couple of bridges in the area. The high level bridge is in pretty rough shape and honestly we should be planning for its replacement pretty soon.

Could build a bridge capable of supporting train and auto traffic.
 
FFS why are you guys so gung-ho about demolishing the historic and iconic High Level Bridge?
Why not just retain this bridge for bikes, pedestrians, transit and the streetcar and build a new bridge for vehicles, commercial traffic and HSR? Or is that notion somehow beyond your imagination?
 
I really love the High Level bridge, I'd hate to see it taken down. It's worth preserving even if it needs to be twinned.
The first time I saw it and crossed it before moving here I thought "wow this bridge is so cool and so Edmonton!" whereas the Walterdale, nice as it is does feel a bit more generic.
We've gotta embrace that industrial grit a little bit, it suits the city well.
FWIW I also like the low level even in its terribly rusty current state, it's very aesthetic.
 
occidentalcapital said:
I'm glad this wasn't built. It doesn't make sense to have a major passenger train station right next to the legislature. We need to maintain some distance around the legislature for ceremonial effect.
Click to expand...
That stretch along 109st would be ideal.

LRT connected, LRT to CBD, multi-use trails, major arterial, walkable to good density, the Leg, UofA, MacEwan etc. etc.

The bigger issue is the impact to those backing onto the tracks on the south side from 109st-104st.
 
Gronk! said:
FFS why are you guys so gung-ho about demolishing the historic and iconic High Level Bridge?
Why not just retain this bridge for bikes, pedestrians, transit and the streetcar and build a new bridge for vehicles, commercial traffic and HSR? Or is that notion somehow beyond your imagination?
Click to expand...
- because it was neglected for decades and to give it the new life you suggest would essentially require tearing it down and rebuilding it anyways. So you should just build a new bridge that better serves as an arterial inlet/outlet for the core as well as pedestrians and future HSR.

As someone who spent years doing structural and civil inspections I am at a loss as to how people cannot accept that these assets have do have a life expectancy and that peoples first reaction is historical preservation over health and safety alongside a growing city’s needs.
 
Stevey_G said:
- because it was neglected for decades and to give it the new life you suggest would essentially require tearing it down and rebuilding it anyways. So you should just build a new bridge that better serves as an arterial inlet/outlet for the core as well as pedestrians and future HSR.

As someone who spent years doing structural and civil inspections I am at a loss as to how people cannot accept that these assets have do have a life expectancy and that peoples first reaction is historical preservation over health and safety alongside a growing city’s needs.
Click to expand...
Source for it being neglected for decades?
 
Stevey_G said:
- because it was neglected for decades and to give it the new life you suggest would essentially require tearing it down and rebuilding it anyways. So you should just build a new bridge that better serves as an arterial inlet/outlet for the core as well as pedestrians and future HSR.

As someone who spent years doing structural and civil inspections I am at a loss as to how people cannot accept that these assets have do have a life expectancy and that peoples first reaction is historical preservation over health and safety alongside a growing city’s needs.
Click to expand...
I am aware that I'm nowhere near as qualified as you, but I would still like to push back on this. It is true that the bridge beams have lost, on average, 50% of their density. However, it was built to accomodate heavy freight and passenger trains.

The current load is a lot easier on it (no heavy rail and far less frequent streetcar usage). The city inspects it regularly, and it has said the bridge can continue to be used as-is if it is renewed every 25 years. I think that if vehicles and heavy rail were diverted to a new bridge, the remaining transit, pedestrians, and seasonal streetcar service would be that much easier on it. When combined with regular maintenance and 25-year renewals, I don't see why we'd need to lose one of our most defining historic landmarks.
 
occidentalcapital said:
I'm glad this wasn't built. It doesn't make sense to have a major passenger train station right next to the legislature. We need to maintain some distance around the legislature for ceremonial effect.
Click to expand...
There still are several parking lots along 109 St, just north of the Leg that would probably actually make a good location for something like this.
 
occidentalcapital said:
Source for it being neglected for decades?
Click to expand...
Source being the engineering and feasibility studies done in the late 2010s assessing the condition of the bridge and its potential as a top level LRT crossing.

You can also confirm by walking the bridge and doing a visual inspection of its condition due to corrosion. The main trusses have lost nearly half their width due to corrosion, and though a paint job has slowed the rust, the bridge’s stringers and floor beams are also noticeable reduced from their original width.

The piers look rough too but I don’t want to comment on that because I am not a concrete expert and I’ve only seen them in quick passing while doing river floats.

For the record, Engineering assessments deemed it safe for current loads back in 2018, but the bridge only got to this condition because CP and the City didn’t act fast enough on corrosion mitigation over the decades or invest in the appropriate maintenance and mitigation practices.

Which is fine, this happens in every city and typically those cities replace their old bridges with new suspensions bridges applying advanced steels and construction techniques that allow crossings to vastly widen for the cities they’re serving. Check out Pattullo bridge if you’re interested in a similar bridge of similar condition being replaced.
 
CplKlinger said:
I am aware that I'm nowhere near as qualified as you, but I would still like to push back on this. It is true that the bridge beams have lost, on average, 50% of their density. However, it was built to accomodate heavy freight and passenger trains.

The current load is a lot easier on it (no heavy rail and far less frequent streetcar usage). The city inspects it regularly, and it has said the bridge can continue to be used as-is if it is renewed every 25 years. I think that if vehicles and heavy rail were diverted to a new bridge, the remaining transit, pedestrians, and seasonal streetcar service would be that much easier on it. When combined with regular maintenance and 25-year renewals, I don't see why we'd need to lose one of our most defining historic landmarks.
Click to expand...
The loads aren’t my concern, it’s the conservative estimates that corrosion can be kept to 5% per decade simply by painting when we live in a winter climate with salts, sand, and a cheap municipal government. Not to mention EAs aren’t infallible nor are inspections. This is why bridge collapses come as such a surprise when they happen.

My opinion? And it’s just mine, a nice suspension bridge using advanced copper steel alloys that is corrosion resistant and more suitable to winter climates akin to the bridges you see built out west. Four lanes, servicing bike and pedestrian traffic, with room underneath for HSR or LRT.
 
As someone who regularly goes across the bridge, I wouldn't say it has been neglected for decades. However, I think the current level of maintenance is consistent with idea it is nearing the end of its life and it will eventually be replaced.

It has lasted a long time and has had some major work on it throughout the years, however it is not currently being used for heavy rail anymore and hasn't been for decades.
 
I'm trying to imagine what a replacement bridge would look like, and I'm thinking that it would probably look similar to the high level as it is. It's so high off the river anything but a truss bridge would be wicked tall and a bit garish.

Would love to see some potential designs though, it's a signature landmark so it's an chance to dream a bit.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top