High Level Bridge redevelopment idea - Page 2

canucklehead2 · #21 Posted **Oct 2, 2020, 3:05 AM**

Was there any other study released besides the 4-page buzzkill that said that any future LRT would need a new bridge due to weight restrictions?

Personally I'm still hoping to see just what Ian posted, a revival of the streetcar line across the HLB... But either option. Just build the damn thing already. I've been on here since 1998 saying the same name thing...

Harrison · #22 Posted **Oct 2, 2020, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Was there any other study released besides the 4-page buzzkill that said that any future LRT would need a new bridge due to weight restrictions?

Personally I'm still hoping to see just what Ian posted, a revival of the streetcar line across the HLB... But either option. Just build the damn thing already. I've been on here since 1998 saying the same name thing...

The existing streetcar line would just need to be relocated to the side of the top deck and then convert the rest to pedestrian / cycling use for the High Level Line project.

canucklehead2 · #23 Posted **Oct 3, 2020, 2:51 AM**

#makeitso

This seems like a no-brainer project to connect Jasper and Whyte... Then again I've been saying this for decades... Literally...

feepa · #24 Posted **Oct 3, 2020, 1:26 PM**

no brainer is that the bridge has a lifespan that is quickly ending. (quickly in terms of infrastructure). We have a decade or two to plan its replacement. Now is not the time to start bringing no-brained idea likes LRT across it. Sure I used to think this was a great idea too. Then I realized through 'buzzkill' reports over the years that CP neglected this bridge for a century and the city has done everything it can to save it and keep it around a little longer, but its days are numbered, and any investment put into it will be for not. Lets start focusing on what do with the replacement, instead of millions of dollars for an LRT across it that's just not going to last.

Sorry if buzzkill, but sometimes, these hairbrained ideas need a bringing back to grounding.

adam-machiavelli · #25 Posted **Oct 3, 2020, 5:15 PM**

...or, and this is just me being strategic, leverage the LRT project to secure infrastructure funding to restore it?

B.ike · #26 Posted **Oct 3, 2020, 9:30 PM**

I agree, the HLB is fast approaching it's end of life cycle without any major interventions.

This isn't the time to be adding more dead loads and cyclic loading on the structural members. Heck a walk around the bridge will reveal lots of steels members with significant section losses (corrosion) which compromise the carrying capacity.

The one saving grace is the redundancy in the design - it appears it was overbuilt originally - so it's standing the test of time.

I typically scoff at the idea of planning studies for one off things, but the HLB should have one. Either you pour massive amounts of funding to restore the structural capacity of the bridge to boost it's lifespan another 50+ years or you look at building a parallel bridge somehow for even more money. Whatever the option, it will make the Walterdale bridge look cheap in comparison.

EdmTrekker · #27 Posted **Oct 3, 2020, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

...or, and this is just me being strategic, leverage the LRT project to secure infrastructure funding to restore it?

Leverage what LRT project? I assume you see the new bridge being built that includes an LRT line. I am unaware of any plan for a new LRT that requires crossing the river at that point ... if any LRT needs a place to cross using the existing LRT bridge to Government Centre building a station at Kinsmen or sharing the new LRT bridge under construction and use shared stations. No need to run rail where it's not needed.

It won't be for HSR as that opportunity appears not possible given development of Strathcona lands and there is no place for terminal unless is on expropriated Procura land south of Jasper and East of 109.

Harrison · #28 Posted **Oct 3, 2020, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.ike

I agree, the HLB is fast approaching it's end of life cycle without any major interventions.

This isn't the time to be adding more dead loads and cyclic loading on the structural members. Heck a walk around the bridge will reveal lots of steels members with significant section losses (corrosion) which compromise the carrying capacity.

The one saving grace is the redundancy in the design - it appears it was overbuilt originally - so it's standing the test of time.

I typically scoff at the idea of planning studies for one off things, but the HLB should have one. Either you pour massive amounts of funding to restore the structural capacity of the bridge to boost it's lifespan another 50+ years or you look at building a parallel bridge somehow for even more money. Whatever the option, it will make the Walterdale bridge look cheap in comparison.

Since it will need to be constructed bank-to-bank, as with the high level, it would be in the realm of 1 billion by the time it is designed and funded, which could be 20 years away at this point.

adam-machiavelli · #29 Posted **Oct 4, 2020, 12:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

Leverage what LRT project? I assume you see the new bridge being built that includes an LRT line. I am unaware of any plan for a new LRT that requires crossing the river at that point ... if any LRT needs a place to cross using the existing LRT bridge to Government Centre building a station at Kinsmen or sharing the new LRT bridge under construction and use shared stations. No need to run rail where it's not needed.

It won't be for HSR as that opportunity appears not possible given development of Strathcona lands and there is no place for terminal unless is on expropriated Procura land south of Jasper and East of 109.

Let's not forget the plan to bring in LRT from Sherwood Park into Edmonton via Whyte Avenue and the HLB. While City staff did recently expunge the proposal from the City Plan, I feel there's a lot of emotional and political support (not to mention the public dollars spent on the recent planning study) to continue planning for this route.

EdmTrekker · #30 Posted **Oct 4, 2020, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Let's not forget the plan to bring in LRT from Sherwood Park into Edmonton via Whyte Avenue and the HLB. While City staff did recently expunge the proposal from the City Plan, I feel there's a lot of emotional and political support (not to mention the public dollars spent on the recent planning study) to continue planning for this route.

I doubt the fiscal conservatives living in "the park" and ran by the Strathcona County Cabal will be funding $$ for LRT. You and I will both be dead before that happens. That said, Edmonton could start is at 75th Street down Whyte and tunnel it east of 109 to connect to the existing tunnels under the UofA to use the existing LRT bridge. Waiting for dimwits in Strathcona County to see the light is futile.

Coldrsx · #31 Posted **Oct 4, 2020, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

no brainer is that the bridge has a lifespan that is quickly ending. (quickly in terms of infrastructure). We have a decade or two to plan its replacement. Now is not the time to start bringing no-brained idea likes LRT across it. Sure I used to think this was a great idea too. Then I realized through 'buzzkill' reports over the years that CP neglected this bridge for a century and the city has done everything it can to save it and keep it around a little longer, but its days are numbered, and any investment put into it will be for not. Lets start focusing on what do with the replacement, instead of millions of dollars for an LRT across it that's just not going to last.

Sorry if buzzkill, but sometimes, these hairbrained ideas need a bringing back to grounding.

Restore, replace, rebuild. She is a gem.