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
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top