High Level Bridge

[archited]

Engineers with Solutions.

 

[kcantor]

Engineers with Solutions.

The interesting things about engineers - or most consultants for that matter - is that the solutions will usually tell you what you want to do, not whether it’s the best thing to do.

Engineers could design Jasper Ave. and sync the lights so you could travel from 82 St. to 124 St. at 60 kph without having to make a single stop. Or they could design Jasper Ave. so you could travel that stretch at an average of 12 kph without a single red light stop shorter than 90 seconds. Both are equally viable engineering solutions.

It’s the same with the High Level Bridge. We need a much improved top of bank to top of bank crossing at this location and the engineers can provide a solution that would keep the existing bridge or they can provide one that will replace the existing bridge. They will have drastically different outcomes on day to day usability for various user groups, much different capital and maintenance life cycle costs, much different life spans and much different aesthetics over those life spans. From an engineering perspective however, they will also both be equally viable solutions.

 

[archited]

^ You do recognize that I said solutions (plural). Are you trying to bake another nothing burger?

 

[kcantor]

^ just responding to a nothing post so I suppose it’s fair to call it a nothing burger.

 

[David A]

I think I heard that nearly half the mass of some of the steel pieces has been lost from rust. That’s not really something you can repair. That steel is gone forever. The problem is CP hardly (if ever) painted it, allowing rust to eat away at the steel. I believe the city has done what they can to maintain it since buying it, but it will never be as robust as it was when it was first built and it will only become more and more expensive to maintain.

Well it is not carrying freight trains any more, so it probably doesn't need to be as robust and CN probably had an inkling that would end years before it did. The last refurbishment did seem to try put in some new plates where there was rust, but I suppose how much more needs to be done now will depend on the intended life and future use of the bridge.

 

[archited]

^ I may be wrong but I believe it only ever carried passenger rail cars. I rode the train from the then downtown Edmonton CP Station to Saskatchewan several times in very early days (mine). The freight yards were (and the remnants still are) in Old Strathcona. It also had the streetcar connection between North Edmonton and South Edmonton. As I recall the bridge was dramatically over designed when it first went into service and it now still retains 60% of its structural integrity. I still believe that it is one of the most recognizable Edmonton icons and there are many good reasons to preserve it. I like the idea of maintaining it for the upper deck tram service and I love the idea of creating a linear park that would use the upper deck (with modifications) connecting MacU in the north with Old Strathcona in the south as a pedestrian/wheelie link as well. I would be in favor of converting the vehicular deck into a high-end retail/hospitality link between Garneau and the Government area, repairing (or bolstering) the decaying steel portions of the bridge and then encasing it in glass as a long term remedial solution.
A new bridge could repair the dogleg jut by connecting 109 north with 109 south in a straight-as-an-arrow direct link. The new bridge could be many things -- a vehicular link, a pedestrian street, a retail/hospitality complement to a converted High Level, and the pier locations could serve as residential and hospitality towers -- a "living bridge".

 

[David A]

Great idea. A glass enclosed structure would be very attractive for pedestrians and could attract various other complimentary things. I enjoy the walk across the bridge and the view, since the sidewalks were widened in the past refurbishment, but not the sometimes brisk wind.

 

[Gronk!]

I just want the original HLB retained for pedestrians, cyclists and the streetcar while a new bridge can carry 2-way lanes of vehicular traffic (including 18-wheelers that get stuck under the bridge on an almost weekly basis), transit, HSR and maybe LRT. The purpose of these two bridges are to serve as an important transportation link across the river, so I really don't feel the need to include a linear park, glass-enclosed retail/hospitality, dancing penguins or other overblown preposterous ideas.