The admin report found that the bridge would be cheaper than the tunnel. I'm sure when funding is secured they will reassess if that is still true. Especially since there is almost no chance of provincial or federal funding over the next few years, and the city's capital borrowing is maxed. This project is atleast a decade away.

"CN Walker Railyard / Yellowhead Trail Crossing Review
As part of the preliminary design process, Administration reviewed options for the CN
Walker Railyard / Yellowhead Trail crossing. Initial concepts reviewed in 2014 included
both tunnel and bridge options, and recommended the bridge. Based on review and
analysis, including public engagement, the bridge crossing is preferred. Any crossing
of this location will require approval of CN and further discussions are required.
The benefits of using a bridge instead of a tunnel are:
● Reduced cost (estimated savings of $50-$100M)
● Provides an active mode link for pedestrians and cyclists
● Mitigates geotechnical and environmental risks associated with tunnelling
beneath an active rail yard"

*Edited because the link didn't work
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
The admin report found that the bridge would be cheaper than the tunnel. I'm sure when funding is secured they will reassess if that is still true. Especially since there is almost no chance of provincial or federal funding over the next few years, and the city's capital borrowing is maxed. This project is atleast a decade away.

"CN Walker Railyard / Yellowhead Trail Crossing Review
As part of the preliminary design process, Administration reviewed options for the CN
Walker Railyard / Yellowhead Trail crossing. Initial concepts reviewed in 2014 included
both tunnel and bridge options, and recommended the bridge. Based on review and
analysis, including public engagement, the bridge crossing is preferred. Any crossing
of this location will require approval of CN and further discussions are required.
The benefits of using a bridge instead of a tunnel are:
● Reduced cost (estimated savings of $50-$100M)
● Provides an active mode link for pedestrians and cyclists
● Mitigates geotechnical and environmental risks associated with tunnelling
beneath an active rail yard"

*Edited because the link didn't work
Click to expand...

Hasn't the federal govt announced a multi billion fund over the next number of years for cities to apply?
 
Gronk! said:
If CN doesn't want to play ball then a tunnel is a viable option.
I quite like the MUP tunnel in Norway that @TAS posted.
Click to expand...
You would still need them to play ball on a tunnel beneath the site. It significantly limits future development on that portion of their land and would come with significant supporting infrastructure that would still be required at the surface. City would also likely incur significant liability for any potential contamination or geotechnical issues (ie. what happens if tunnel collapses during construction or there are future settlement issues impacting the rail) encountered in the alignment.
 
husky said:
You would still need them to play ball on a tunnel beneath the site. It significantly limits future development on that portion of their land and would come with significant supporting infrastructure that would still be required at the surface. City would also likely incur significant liability for any potential contamination or geotechnical issues (ie. what happens if tunnel collapses during construction or there are future settlement issues impacting the rail) encountered in the alignment.
Click to expand...
Ventilation shafts could also be an issue.
 
If CN allows the 170 Street Bridge, I'm sure something can be worked out here:
1760230265172.png
 
I thought the plan was to go over the rail yard. There was some Geo testing in the Off leash park to the north a couple of years back.
 
The picture I posted was a case in point that a bridge could be built over rail yards, even with piers between the tracks.
 
The_Cat said:
The picture I posted was a case in point that a bridge could be built over rail yards, even with piers between the tracks.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. The span over the CN yards and The Yellowhead are vastly different from the 170 street bridge. That is why a Cable Stay bridge is required other than more conventional methods.
 
The active mode benefit @SarcasticMarmot noted above is a seriously underrated piece of why building this is important. Not only what a novelty it would be to ride/walk over, but would create a fantastic connector in the bike network for the northside, which presently is completely miserable to cross as a cyclist from basically the entire City west of Fort Road.
 
northlands said:
The active mode benefit @SarcasticMarmot noted above is a seriously underrated piece of why building this is important. Not only what a novelty it would be to ride/walk over, but would create a fantastic connector in the bike network for the northside, which presently is completely miserable to cross as a cyclist from basically the entire City west of Fort Road.
Click to expand...

It is miserable - agreed. 127st should be a better option soon.
 
Some construction photos and information from the Coast Meridian Overpass over the CP Railyard in Port Coquitlam. The railyard is 500m wide at the overpass. I recall they built each section on the south end then pushed it north towards Lougheed Hwy.

www.kwhconstructors.com

Coast Meridian Overpass — KWH Constructors

KWH broke records erecting this bridge by launching the single span over the CPR Train Yard.
www.kwhconstructors.com www.kwhconstructors.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top