High Level Context

July 16th, 2016 in 2007-2010 Term

The High Level Bridge was a tough issue this past week, one I’ve spent a fair bit of time talking over about with colleagues and friends and reflecting on.

It flared up Monday on the CBC Call in show when, in answering a question about it, I allowed my frustration to boil over and said I was ‘Tired of being lectured’ about the valid concerns people have about the impact of the new suicide barriers. That was not a helpful comment and I apologize for saying it. What I should have done was to ask for compassion for the emotionally difficult position Council has been in with respect to the barriers, and to ask for patience as we examine options to mitigate the conditions we’ve created. 

Council, after having determined that the bridge was a potential ‘suicide hotspot’, had felt motivated to act quickly. This whole issue has been difficult for me as I know three people who’ve taken their own lives on the bridge. It’s been challenging for many decision makers and citizens alike for similar reasons. I didn’t intend to make it an either/or discussion, but I accept responsibility for the fact that my comments unhelpfully polarized the issue this week.

I also rode the bridge several times over the past week and had to use the narrower east side, because of the work on the west side, and it is more constrained than ever on the east. The east side was never great, which is why I preferred the west, and now it’s worse. Making it worse clearly wasn’t Council’s intent when we approved the installation of the barriers. And yet I see and share the frustration in the result.

On reflection, this is an example of what can go wrong when the City is in a hurry, which is something for us to continue to watch for. Further opportunities for consultation with affected users might have identified this issue earlier in the process and allowed for a change; something else to take away from this. Though we also received pressure for not acting even faster on the barriers, which just goes to show the difficulty Council faced on this file.

I’m not sure what to do about the bridge itself yet, but talking about the possibility of requiring dismount on the east side was not well received. I believe my comments were taken somewhat out of context so I want to emphasize here again that the situation is being monitored, and no decision is pending on requiring dismount. To stream bike traffic all to the west side would have other consequences and could well require reconfiguration of intersections at either end to make it more feasible. Whatever the next steps are we’ll make sure to engage and hear from users.

There have also been some creative suggestions, like using the top deck of the bridge to accommodate more users. I love the idea of a New York High-Line kind of experience up top, and there seems to be enough interest to warrant looking into what would be involved. To be realistic, however, there are many complexities: the province maintains first right of refusal to use it for high speed rail; the City might need it in the long term for the ‘central area circulator’ low-floor LRT link between Bonnie Doon and Downtown via Strathcona as identified in the long-term LRT Network Plan; and of course the Edmonton Radial Railway Society operates the highest streetcar crossing in the world (which if you’ve never experienced you should) which I would also think we all would want to continue to accomodate. And then there’s the issue of ensuring a person in crisis cannot easily jump from the new top deck. So that’s not to say it can’t be done, only to say it’s complex. But I appreciate the creative and constructive suggestions.

Part of the backdrop to this whole issue is that Council’s recently been getting a lot of negative feedback from cyclists, and not just about the bridge. That’s been frustrating for me in no small part because I agree with many of you who say we’re way behind other cities (including Calgary!) when it comes to improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians on our streets. But it felt like our Council turned a corner with Councillor McKeen’s motion on Tuesday to work with Stantec on a pilot separated bike lane grid for downtown. I tacked on consideration for it to include the University and Strathcona area. The reports on this will come back in September and hopefully we can move swiftly (but reasonably and with appropriate public input) on this.

It feels like we’re moving again, with a commitment to build better bike lanes – which was the challenge I put to Council last year when the previous bike lanes were being removed. And I’ll work to keep an open mind about ways to deal with the issues on the bridge. I’m with you.

17 thoughts on “High Level Context”

  1. Very nice post Mr. Mayor. As you know I wholeheartedly agree that meaningful consultation with truly affected parties will go a long way towards avoiding these types of problems. As will some mutual respect from cyclists and pedestrians in this case. I’m feeling guilty over your comments respecting criticism from cyclists. I don’t know if you had EMBA in mind, but want to assure you that on the Cloverdale/mountain bike front EMBA’s negativity can be turned around quite quickly. I have
    no doubt that our members would react very positively to an offer to cooperate with EMBA (and provide some measure of assistance) to allow a replacement trail to be built.

  2. Here’s the thing, I appreciate your apology and willingness to recognize the idiocy of your comments. What I can no longer abide is you or members of council asking for patience in fixing the messes you make. The Metro Line will not be fixed and up to full speed before 2017, possibly longer. High-Level will not be fixed until 2018, and at who knows what expense. You removed more bike lanes than you built and said be patient we will fix it and never have. On photo radar you took a patronizing attitude that some Edmontonians aren’t willing to easily forget either. 102 avenue bridge? Patience please. Walterdale bride? Patience please. Etc.

    How much more patience can you ask? We are tired of a council that gets yearly raises in salary, raises taxes every single year, and yet creates mostly mess and headache for everyone.

  3. If the city had actually consulted the users of the high level bridge and showed them the planned barriers, it would have been obvious that this was a poor design and that 3 million dollars would not have been wasted. The west side was already congested and the east side was barely a minimum width, so narrowing both sides and introducing hazards to cyclists was really poor planning.

    Instead, the city forged ahead and had the barriers installed and now have to do damage control which will probably cost many more millions of dollars.

    It should have been obvious that placing the barriers outside of the east and west multi use paths, instead of on the inside would not have impacted the many thousands of daily users of Edmonton’s most travelled cycle and walking corridor.

    Don’t even get me started on the closure and eventual demolition of the Cloverdale bridge and the new Valley Line that will replace it… perhaps no-one from city council has ever spent time in what was really one of the most beautiful places in the river valley.

    It will never be the same with a train running overhead.

    My north south commute utilized both the high level bridge and Cloverdale Bridge and now one of those is gone and the other is a mess.

  4. Mayor, I am very sympathetic to your challenges on this file. On Thursday afternoon, my son and I set up tripods on the south end of the High Level Bridge to do time-lapse photography. A woman on a bicycle came over and started swearing at us for ruining her cycling experience and wasting her tax dollars. We asked her why she was lambasting us; it turns out that she thought we we were city employees–the tripods she took for a survey set up. I am confident that the City of Edmonton is working diligently on the bridge, cycling viaducts, and mental health issues. City employees should not be harassed, and we tourists should be left to take only pictures, leave only footprints. Best regards, Mike

  5. A thoughtful and measured summation of the situation at hand—including forthright admissions of mistakes made. Thanks, Mayor Iveson.

    As a frequent cyclist on the bridge, I’ve made peace with the situation (though I desperately look forward to the reopening of the west sidewalk). On the east sidewalk, even during rush hour, the congestion adds only a minute or two to my commute. Yes, the rails make me a bit nervous. Yes, meandering pedestrians wearing earbuds get me frustrated now and then. But it’s truly not as awful as people have been saying.

    With a bit of patience and consideration (cyclists, slow down and use your bells; pedestrians, keep to the right and remain attentive) we can certainly continue to share both paths.

  6. While I understand that city council is facing tough challenges when trying to catch up with rebuilding Edmonton’s lagging infrastructure, the track record in dealing with many of the issues facing cyclists and pedestrians is incredibly poor.
    Is it really the cities’ job to act on building suicide barriers on the Highlevel Bridge, when suicide is a problem that has nothing to do with bridges? There are plenty of other possibilities in the city to commit suicide, so those who decide to take their own lives always will. Suicide is a societal problem and no barrier can prevent it. Please have that stupid fence removed as soon as possible! What good is it to try and prevent suicides in an ineffective manner, when it endangers all users of the bridge?
    I also agree with Keith Hallgreen about the Cloverdale Footbridge. In the early 1900’s plenty of cities around the world built their entire train systems underground. How come we can’t do this today? Those trains will probably be in operation 100 years from now. The problems they create are long term. Please build no more train lines until a proper way can be figured out. Perhaps the money we had to spend on that new arena downtown should have went for infrastructure.
    This also leads me to another subject. The traffic situation downtown during hockey games and other events will be a disaster. Don’t believe me? Just wait until the fall!

  7. Don, anyone who has had to think on his/her feet will sympathize with your talk-back fiasco.

    Returning to the aptly named “suicide barriers”, the best part of the story is that an old idea has been revived: the top deck is an opportunity to create a very special public space.

    Moreover, the news that the City is working with Stantec to improve bicycle transportation suggests a path to realizing that opportunity: who better than Stantec to find a cost-effective way to deliver on the High-Line vision… and wouldn’t that naturally support extension of the proposed bike grid to Old Strathcona?

    One last thought: I expect lawyers will have a field day when it becomes clear that the anti-suicide barriers are causing personal injuries. The City may have a nasty liability situation on its hands, one that could end up costing much more than the difference between the $7M and $3M versions of the barrier system.

  8. Scott Rollans, good point. I feel impatient and frustrated sometimes crossing on my bike, but you are right that it is important to keep things in perspective.I am genuinely afraid, however, that someone is going to get hurt — especially on the east side.

    Mayor Iveson, thank you for “owning the problem.” Maybe that’s not what everyone wants to hear — i.e. to be patient — but I personally find it easier to be patient understanding the complexities faced by Council, and some of the considerations for the future. Suicide is a very emotional issue, and I am sure that Council felt pressured to act quickly, even though this probably wasn’t the best call.

  9. I really appreciate the apology, Don. It takes some guts to do that and is rare among politicians. And it’s not like I have never let my frustrations boil over in a comment that I later regret.

    To the substance of the matter, I’d like to add the following points as someone who grew up in one of the great cycling nations (Netherlands) and who crosses the High Level by bike twice a day:

    1. What evidence is there that barriers like the ones now installed on the High Level actually reduce the suicide rate? I would think that, because the measure doesn’t address the underlying cause, the suicides just move to different locations. And if that is true, then the benefit of the barriers is zero.

    2. As a regular cyclist in Edmonton, I think the biggest risk to cyclist and pedestrian safety are the mixed used trails. The reason is that cyclists tend to move at about 4 times the speed of pedestrians. That is why many places in the world, including dense cities like London, segregate pedestrian from cycling traffic. Edmonton, a city with so much space, must surely be able to plan its infrastructure to achieve this segregation? One way to achieve this on the High Level is to make one side exclusively pedestrian and the other side exclusively for cyclists. Has this option been considered? A supplementary measure could be to make the traffic lights on the north and south side (and indeed everywhere along bike/pedestrian routes more bike/pedestrian friendly by giving them shorter waiting times and thereby facilitate the time cost of crossing to the east or west side. Or build over/underpasses for bikes/pedestrians.

    3. Where 2. cannot be achieved, it is imperative that mixed use trail users behave properly. In my experience the single largest behavioural problem is that many people (and pedestrians in particular) use earphones to listen to music etc.. As a result they don’t hear cyclists approaching from behind even when those cyclists use their bells. Changing behaviour is difficult, but road signs and education can help. Eg signs reminding people to take off their ear phones while crossing the bridge or painting lane dividing lines on the paths (currently missing on the east side). Has this been considered?

    4. The width of the path on the East side is actually not a problem if 2. and/or 3. are addressed.

    5. Has it been considered to impose some of the cost of the suicide barriers on car traffic as well? After all, if the objective is to make the city more walkable/bikable and to promote green forms of transportation, you’d want to make sure that your policies make cycling/walking more attractive and driving less attractive. In the case of the High Level, this could mean reducing car traffic to a single lane and using the other lane for bike/pedestrian traffic. I am not saying that this is an option that should be pursued but has it at least been considered?

    6. In the long-run, the City really needs more bridges for all kinds of traffic. It would be great to see the historic High Level become the main connector for life across the North Saskatchewan by turning it into a street with shops, greenery, cycling and pedestrian paths and the streetcar/train on top. Effectively turning the High Level into a bridge like they used to be in medieval times.

    Good luck, mr Mayor!

  10. The HIgh Level is not a Strava segment. Hit the 520 if you want to show how fast you are.
    If you are unable to spend the extra minute or two to cross the High Level at a pace that respects other users then hit the River Valley and do the climbs. I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of cyclists would do that once and then decide that a safe, slow commute across the High Level is rather more preferable.

    Not everybody can have infrastructure that suits their particular use cases. It is true that cycling infrastructure is woefully lacking in YEG, but we are not about to build infrastructure that supports Strava wannabe’s, commuters and weekend meanders simultaneously.

    Would I like to put the watts out on dedicated, safe, infrastructure? I would, but I have no expectation that this wish will be realized. Now, that said, education of vehicle drivers …. more of that please. My hand signals are not an obscene gesture; get off my 6, stay in your car and keep calm … I’ll be far down the road well before you.

  11. You have nothing to apologize for, the suicide barriers on the High Level was an Ill-conceived band-aid for a deeper issue. The city needs a Mayor who will speak their mind because at least people know where you stand.

  12. Placing the vertical beams that support the anti-suicide rail on the outside of the pedestrian wall would give cyclists and pedestrians the space we used to have. It would be expensive however it seems to me that City Council should take this action before we have too many accidents involving handlebars getting caught on support beams (scary).
    In councils future decision making I hope they consider cyclist safety when considering how to save money on projects.

  13. I truly appreciate your candour in this. To read that the size of the steel used was larger than originally agreed on is shocking. As someone who rides 95% of the year and includes the bridge as part of their daily commute the changes have been observed rather closely. To read that it would only cost a few million more to have the barriers outside the existing ones really makes me wonder why the city rushed to the lowest option. Was there any time spent looking at welding taller poles on top of the existing ones? The new guard is far beefier than the existing fence was, if the fence was strong enough I don’t understand why the barrier needed to be so hefty, unless this all stems from the contractor using the wrong size of steel.

    But beyond all that, why didn’t the city just spend the money on helping to improve mental health? As Toronto has learned ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/suicide-barrier-on-bloor-viaduct-worked-but-jumpers-went-elsewhere-study/article1386704/ ) building a barrier on the bridge will stop people from jumping there but just forces them to move elsewhere. If you are of the mind state to do self-harm it is much better to receive proper treatment/counselling then just build a wall. People are creative and ingenious, often to their own detriment. Helping is more useful then preventing.

Comments are closed.