husky said:
Pretty frank discussion in council today around Clr. Rutherfords motion to provide a memo outlining mass transit options for NW Edmonton. Sounds like crossing the Yellowhead and the CN Yard will cost a ridiculous amount. A realignment may be considered, based on the discussion.
Click to expand...

Tunneling under the Yellowhead and the CN Yard may be the only option unless they find a way to realign to 127 St.
 
husky said:
Pretty frank discussion in council today around Clr. Rutherfords motion to provide a memo outlining mass transit options for NW Edmonton. Sounds like crossing the Yellowhead and the CN Yard will cost a ridiculous amount. A realignment may be considered, based on the discussion.
Click to expand...

Based on the 'iconic' bridge designs presented thus far?

Hear me out.

How about we did the architectural wonder competition approach and go for a simple, effective design that's utilitarian and cost-effective.

Looking at the maps it looks like there are a few spots for column supports in the yard vs. clear span.

All options presented thus far are massive arch, cantilever or cable-stayed.

It would be interesting to see a simpler more cost-effective bridge.
 
IanO said:
Based on the 'iconic' bridge designs presented thus far?

Hear me out.

How about we did the architectural wonder competition approach and go for a simple, effective design that's utilitarian and cost-effective.

Looking at the maps it looks like there are a few spots for column supports in the yard vs. clear span.

All options presented thus far are massive arch, cantilever or cable-stayed.

It would be interesting to see a simpler more cost-effective bridge.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that CN showed no interest in cooperating and wouldn't allow columns. That's a big part of what is driving the design. Other cities have had similar problems with CN.
 
TAS said:
Getting our two federal government MPs aware and on board couldn't hurt either.
Click to expand...
I also wonder if there could be provincial support if we linked this to the upcoming provincial rail master plan. Assuming the ultimate plan matches the engagement materials and an Edmonton-St. Albert connection is in the 30-year plan, then Edmonton could frame this as being similar to the LRT airport connection that got planning funds in the recent provincial budget. Maybe Edmonton could argue that since either the province or the feds would need to bridge/tunnel that gap at some point regardless, it makes sense to do it before costs inflate even more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAS
The Yellowhead is being realigned south. There will be a little land between Yellowhead and the Calder/Walker Yards. something like the Gantry crane may be able to help.
 
husky said:
Pretty frank discussion in council today around Clr. Rutherfords motion to provide a memo outlining mass transit options for NW Edmonton. Sounds like crossing the Yellowhead and the CN Yard will cost a ridiculous amount. A realignment may be considered, based on the discussion.
Click to expand...
Realignment? Where? I can fathom going east to 97 Street, but uh... good luck.
 
husky said:
Pretty frank discussion in council today around Clr. Rutherfords motion to provide a memo outlining mass transit options for NW Edmonton. Sounds like crossing the Yellowhead and the CN Yard will cost a ridiculous amount. A realignment may be considered, based on the discussion.
Click to expand...
This was always the challenge and my biggest issue with the approved Metro Line alignment. It shoudl've always crossed at either 97th Street or 127th Street and avoided the CN Yards. Planning to cross the Yards at their widest point was always an idiotic choice, in my opinion.
 
Avenuer said:
This was always the challenge and my biggest issue with the approved Metro Line alignment. It shoudl've always crossed at either 97th Street or 127th Street and avoided the CN Yards. Planning to cross the Yards at their widest point was always an idiotic choice, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
While the bridge is undeniably a huge financial challenge in getting the LRT across the yard, that's also what would make it so valuable. The yard is hard to cross right now for anyone and everything, which is why we should cross it (imo).

The very problem, that it's a new large crossing, is the value. That's why I'd still love to see this alignment as a bridge (in an ideal world). To bridge that gap and allow pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders a direct path that does not otherwise exist.

Based on what I heard in the city council meeting, they'll either kick the can down the road to the 2 million population point, or be fully reliant on federal funds that don't exist right now. I'm hoping for campaigning to find the necessary higher order funding, but I won't hold my breath.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top