News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

Low Level Bridge

IMG_2130.jpeg
 
archited said:
It occurred to me while I was playing with the idea of connecting the Radial Railway Tram with the Historic Rossdale Power Plant via the Low Level Bridge...
Click to expand...
Not to throw water on anyone's dreaming but...

The low level bridge tandem handles more than 40,000 vehicles a day with slightly more northbound than southbound and those numbers are expected to grow.

The northbound tandem is expected to be done next year and the year after that we can anticipate at least 2-3 years of closures for the high level bridge refurbishment..

Even after the high level bridge refurbishment is done, Edmonton simply doesn't have enough river crossings to take the low level tandem out of service on a permanent basis.
 
^ aw c'mon, Ken, you love throwing water (and not just "water" but cold water at that) on any dreaming vis-a-vis the City. I do love how you state the obvious, treating it as if it were an unknown fact (a habit of yours to be sure). Edmonton needs a lot of things and river crossings (other than pedestrian crossings which seem to be being amassed in impressive numbers) are some of those things for sure. I can't believe that you on one hand see the City-State of Singapore (roughly the size of NYC) being this zenith of progressive design and cultural maturity yet poor little old Edmonton and the future loss of the Low Level bridge is unimaginable to you because its present day numbers sustain 40,000 vehicle crossings per day. I don't get you.
 
Last edited:
^ aw c'mon Ted. I've spent my career dreaming of things that could be done and doing my best at seeing as many of them as possible come to fruition. If you don't mind my blowing my own horn in response to your insult, my success ratio is actually pretty good even though there were many who were prepared to commit me on more than one occasion for being completely irrational and out of touch. One of the things about cold water however, is that it sharpens one's perspective on both what could and what should be done and it's often best thrown on one's own ideas to make sure they're properly tempered before simply throwing them out there. As for defending the permanent closure of the low level bridge in both directions by comparing it to your opinion of my thoughts on Singapore's successes and failures when it comes to progressive design and cultural maturity is nothing but a straw man.
 
^ Every time you get in a corner, Ken, you say "straw man, straw man" like that is some kind of defense for your position. Low Level Bridge is a current enigma in terms of traffic flow and whether you want to admit it or not there is a spaghetti plate of entanglement for vehicular traffic that encompasses both the Low Level Bridge and the James Macdonald Bridge -- a situation that I believe could be greatly improved. The improvement would come in other forms of people conveyance -- rail service by Radial Railway extension as I have described, new cross-river vehicle conveyances in terms of new high level bridges -- one connecting 109th Street in a straight-as-an-arrow path between north side 109 and south side 109, and another in a direct route aligned with 99th Street from a site west of the Convention Centre (this latter "high level" could obviate most of the need for traffic across the Low Level to the south side); these two bridges alone would solve most of Edmonton's cross river problems -- and... and new LRT conveyances that align with both new bridges when they are deemed to be feasible.
Anyway, I had expected to be in Edmonton this past fall as you know -- fate said "no"; so now I expect to be in Alberta in the spring and when I arrive (with advance notice when my schedule is better defined) I am going to invite you (and others who might be interested) to a beer guzzling get-together (wine if you prefer) where we can hash this and other ideas out to the *potential advantage of the big E in a more agreeable setting
 
^ Wait, what?

“…new cross-river vehicle conveyances in terms of new high level bridges -- one connecting 109th Street in a straight-as-an-arrow path between north side 109 and south side 109, and another in a direct route aligned with 99th Street from a site west of the Convention Centre (this latter "high level" could obviate most of the need for traffic across the Low Level to the south side); these two bridges alone would solve most of Edmonton's cross river problems -- and... and new LRT conveyances that align with both new bridges…”?

Geez, I must have missed that in your initial plethora of posts regarding your advocating for the permanent closure of the tandem low level bridges. Silly me. I didn’t realize you were actually proposing to replace them first with a tandem of new high level bridges. That I could get behind!

When you do get here, you should start by getting the original City of Strathcona to secede from the City of Edmonton. That would make enabling transportation between them a provincial responsibility and then you could get Premier Dani to pay for everything!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top