Landscaping the bridge properly and using it a as a pedestrian connection across 97th Street has some merit but that benefit is outweighed by the reality of its presence. Last time I was past that bridge, "homeless people" were using it as place for "homeless" people to hang out. Maybe it's been cleaned up but there were tents and all kinds of junk and garbage scattered all over the place.

Moreover, the bridge creates a good side of the tracks / bad side of the tracks stigma that discourages economic development on the north side of the bridge. Besides providing a benefit to the businesses on the north side, getting rid of the bridge would also create a freer traffic flow and help open up downtown from the north side and encourage more people to go downtown.

The historic significance of the bridge has been debated before but I personally don't see it as being anything iconic that many people would miss. It would be as missed as the rat hole is imho. That would be, not at all.
 
It is attached to a downtown park -- should we get rid of that too? It abuts RAM on one side; it is going to be part of the Qaulico Park extension in the future, it will be buttressed by whatever new development fills in the remand space, it has a standing proposal for a major Asian centre + tower just to the north on 97th Street. If we keep thing about what has been/what is, it is little wonder that the downtown is stagnant -- let's think about what could be instead. Helping to make 97th street a vehicular speedway hardly seems relevant.
 
I'd like to see the LRT SUP connected to the 105 Ave protected bike lanes. The only missing connection at the moment is between 96 St and 101 St.

It wouldn't be possible to go through the pedestrian corridor between Epcor and Stationlands 1. there's value in keeping it pedestrian only, 2. there are only stairs and a wheel chair ramp at 101 St, but there's a potential to convert the alley way north of Stationlands into a shared street.
 
Some cities have transformed old rail lines into urban parks. I get that part of it but 97 St is main artery into downtown and the intersection needs to be widened and brought up to modern standards to provide better accessibility to downtown. Having RAM on one side, a potential new development on the other side, and 100 year old crumbling infrastructure in the middle makes little sense. In a different location an argument for rehabilitating the bridge could be made but 97th and 104th is not the place to have a transportation bottleneck particularly if a major Asian center and high rise materializes on 97th to the north of the current bridge.
 
Last edited:
There's a noticeable socio-economic difference between the north and south sides of the bridge and one would hope that the city administrators would value economic development on the north side of the bridge ahead of creating a pleasant pedestrian experience over 97 St. 109 St is seeing development that most likely would not be happening if the rat hole was still there.
 
Last edited:
Keep the bridge because there's so much potential with the crossing at the top. They could construct a MUP that connects Mary Burlie Park with Stationlands, or something more, and include more greenspace and community gardens.

1747190974000.png


1747191016805.png



However, the pedestrian underpasses are narrow and dangerous, with muggings just waiting to happen. They should renovate the bridge so that the pedestrian underpasses are much wider and more visible to motorists (including the po-po). If they are wide enough to include cycling then all the better.

1747190794641.png
 
Looking at the above photo I think the solution I'd prefer to see is to decommission the sidewalks on either side. Then level out the land where the sidewalks were so that the sidewalk routes above along the top side of the bridge. This would improve safety in the area and would encourage more pedestrian north-south movement. Vehicular traffic can maintain under the bridge.
 
I was trying to remember why this bridge remained when the Rat Hole and 105 St bridge were removed so quickly when the rail yards were moved out of DT. And I think it only still exists because Via continued passenger services downtown for a few years when all other rail was pulled out.

Maybe it's time to take the bridge out, I don't know. I can see both sides of this argument.
 
BrettB said:
I was trying to remember why this bridge remained when the Rat Hole and 105 St bridge were removed so quickly when the rail yards were moved out of DT. And I think it only still exists because Via continued passenger services downtown for a few years when all other rail was pulled out.

Maybe it's time to take the bridge out, I don't know. I can see both sides of this argument.
Click to expand...
The historical ownership records for the 97th St. Bridge were not as clear as they were for the Rat Hole and 105th St. Bridge.

At the time Qualico purchased Station Lands from CN, CN insisted the City owned the bridge and the City insisted CN owned the bridge. The Downtown Plan at the time called for 97th Street to be brought up to grade as one of the Gateway Entries to downtown and neither the City or CN wanted to be responsible for the costs of removing the bridge to facilitate that.

Qualico solved the impasse by purchasing CN’s interest in the bridge “if any” (CN weren’t prepared to acknowledge ownership even long enough to sell it) and by having the City approve the redevelopment of the bridge including a “jewel-box” retail structure as part of the original DP for Station Lands. The City also required Qualico to include and maintain an extension of shared use path on the bridge and link it to 105 Avenue on the west side of 97th St.

The ability to bring 97th St. up to grade died with the new RAM being given approval for direct access to their parkade from 97th St. at its then/now current grades even though alternatives were offered to them.

Via rail service had ceased several years before CN listed the site for sale and they had already removed all of the railroad tracks.

As an aside, the City once owned the 101 St. Bridge that had been long removed from the other end of the site when the rail was removed west of 101 Street. While they brought 101 St. back to grade when that was done, they “cheated” by not fully removing the foundations and by only bringing the road bed up to the lowered sidewalk elevation (a similar condition to what you see on 97th St.). That’s why there’s a “dip” in 101St. as you drive/walk between 104 and 105A Ave. It’s the same reason there’s an even greater “dip” in Jasper Ave. between 109 and 110 St.
 
That's actually so interesting, it's kind of cool that there are still some small remnants of the old CN rail yards, although not visible to everyone. I was telling my coworkers that Stationlands was once part of the CN railyards and they refused to believe me lol.

Here's a little picture update of the Remand and the bridge from yesterday.

1000046987.jpg


1000046988.jpg
 
So now imagine if the Remand site was sold to Qualico and their linear park continued across 97th Street -- according to Ken they already own the bridge. The remand site could see another two-tower build-out (biting into the Quarters precinct) and that linear park extension could be one of Edmonton's finest -- to say the least it is off to a good start. And, as I have mentioned before there is a "ghost" LRT station below 97th street that could be brought to life, rejuvenating connections to a whole series of places and giving Qualico a connection to the entire City by way of that rejuvenated station. Destroying the bridge will do zero for improving traffic on 97th street and will just work to maintain the area as "undesirable" and gritty. It may take a while but this could be a blossoming area of the City -- Qualico has proven to be a quality developer and it deservedly is showcased in their very name.
 
Some in Edmonton have a propensity to "knock the Sh!# out of" existing infrastructure, refusing to ever see the value in keeping the value in repurposing into something other -- Coliseum, Paramount Theatre, and building after building that doesn't jibe with a "new is better" attitude. We need to pay attention to the onslaught of new crap being built that isn't worth the match it takes to burn it down.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top