Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Didn't the original plan just have a single line of lights straight up the middle?

Also, this sounds expensive. $700 000 for a few hundred metres of lights? That sounds like it costs more than a city bus. Where do I apply for one of these city contracts?

Meh, just finished a reno with LED pot lights. $700k sounds about right.

[Fuzz]

The windows are more open in the original render as well, without the lights dividing them.

[Bigtime]

That's what I like, so I hope the LED's go in on the top and we get the unobstructed glass panels. I've tweeted out to Druh and her staff to see if they know the details.

[Fuzz]

NM, I'm wrong!

[Bigtime]

Ah nuts.

Edit: Maybe yay!

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Didn't the original plan just have a single line of lights straight up the middle?

Also, this sounds expensive. $700,000 for a few hundred metres of lights? That sounds like it costs more than a city bus. Where do I apply for one of these city contracts?

fixed

[Fuzz]

Hook, line and... Put that there on purpose to see who was going to be the first.

[Erick Estrada]

We are past arguing about how the bridge came to be but it's proving to be a pretty expensive pedestrian bridge to maintain. The current lights were at the end of their life cycle after only four years? So if I understand every 10 years the city will have to dish out $700k to replace the lights? Pricey bridge indeed!

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Didn't the original plan just have a single line of lights straight up the middle?

Also, this sounds expensive. $700 000 for a few hundred metres of lights? That sounds like it costs more than a city bus. Where do I apply for one of these city contracts?

or two blue loops.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

We are past arguing about how the bridge came to be but it's proving to be a pretty expensive pedestrian bridge to maintain. The current lights were at the end of their life cycle after only four years? So if I understand every 10 years the city will have to dish out $700k to replace the lights? Pricey bridge indeed!

I heard on the news the new LEDs last like 20 years or something.

[getbak]

Anyone know how much the city is spending to switch all of the street lights to LED?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

or two blue loops.

No, you'd only ever want to get one blue one. You make the second one orange, and put it at the south end of the city. Then you can 'portal' between them. My understanding is if you put up a second blue one, the first blue one would just disappear.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

Anyone know how much the city is spending to switch all of the street lights to LED?

This is a long term savings so not comparable

[zamler]

$3300 per light, damn.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

We are past arguing about how the bridge came to be but it's proving to be a pretty expensive pedestrian bridge to maintain. The current lights were at the end of their life cycle after only four years? So if I understand every 10 years the city will have to dish out $700k to replace the lights? Pricey bridge indeed!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-..._lsa=7205-b046

Melnick said advancements in technology mean the 300 new light fixtures on the 130-metre-long bridge should last several winters and result in the city saving money on maintenance costs in the long run.


“These new LED lights will be good for 15 to 20 years. The old lights were only good for three to five years,” Melnick said.

[psyang]

I'd also assume that replacing the led bulbs in 15-20 years will be much cheaper than changing from flourescent to LEDs. The 700k probably has a lot of one-time costs in that number.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-..._lsa=7205-b046

Interesting because I took this from the original article posted;

https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgar...form=hootsuite

Once replaced, they should last for ten years and save the city on maintenance – not to mention they are more energy efficient.

[Erick Estrada]

“The original light fixtures were sort of rated for indoors, that was the technology they had at the time, that’s what was chosen,” said Anna Melnick, a spokeswoman with the city’s roads department.
“The harsh Calgary weather was getting to them . . . They were just burning out, it was too cold.”

That's a flat out lie as 2012 is not that long ago. There's plenty of industrial lighting rated for -30 to -40 degree ambient temperatures. The bridge was bleeding red and someone obviously made the decision to save money here as I have a hard time believing the engineers handling the job would approve indoor lighting for Calgary's ambient climate.

[Bigtime]

^^^ That Herald article came out after the Metro one I posted, so I'm assuming things changed a bit.

I'm sure LED's were in the original plan, as were things like the bridge surface being granite and not concrete. Of course as people started freaking out about the price tag for the bridge cuts got made to keep it near that budget number.

I hope the LED fixtures if they are simply going where the fluorescent's were are a smaller profile and allow more glass to be visible. Very curious to see how it looks at night too with them. Oh and if they get those pot lights in the bridge deck to work long term with the LED's that will be great too.

[Fuzz]

The last phases of the bridge were "get it done, and don't spend a penny more". That's what we got. Shoddy in-deck lighting, crappy florescents, poor finishing...

I love the bridge, I use it every day. It's wide, and when people stay in their lanes, it works very well. It's a victim of it's own success in that regard, as their is always some doofus taking pictures with no regard to the people using it. But damn if the whole thing wasn't badly bungled along the way.