[cloney]

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.

This x1000

 

[dkazzed]

This again.

I had Metro Line to Castledowns pegged for 2040, not 2070. Sigh.

But also this...

Now hear me out, it's almost 7 metres wide, the trains are about 2.6m wide? We can make it fit. We're going to have to shuffle lanes arounds, move the SUP over, move the counterflow lane over, but it'll work.

View attachment 623867

 

[yeggator]

This again.


But also this...

Perhaps you could also just build a separate underpass next to 97th Street. It’s short enough to not need ventilation shafts.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

I think one of the biggest problems that we see too often is that in an effort to be fiscally conservative and supposedly fiscally responsible we see a lot of, "we should reevaluate and pause to something that's more affordable at this point in time" Unfortunately this line of thought increases the cost of whatever project it is as each year goes by.

 

[fromtraintotower]

I don't like any idea that requires the Metro Line to follow the Yellowhead. It requires even more construction and costs to the Yellowhead project, and there is already no space for an LRT. The highway is already squished thin between the CN railyard and the Beechmount Cemetery, and you want to slap the LRT right within it? Not a chance. You either have to cram it in the 6 metre wide median, which results in a major design problem when you want the LRT to go from the west/east of the YHT to the north/south of 97 Street, (97 Street is already a proper interchange, and I'm sure no one would be too happy to, again, add even more construction and costs to the Yellowhead project) or you can put the Metro Line on the north elevation of The YHT to make the turn easier. This will still require land from either side of the highway, and the reasons for the CN railyard being unwilling to give some land to help with the bridge will be the same for if the Metro Line follows the YHT.

Of course, there's the somewhat obvious argument that Edmonton made mistakes years ago when they design the Metro Line so that it's too far from 97 Street. Unfortunately, unless you want to rip up the Metro Line and realign it, this is just something we have to live with. Call it sunk cost fallacy, but I do genuinely believe that a bridge over the CN railyard is the most and only feasible option here.

 

[thommyjo]

The amount of talk here to realign the line in favour of cost savings of the bridge is really shortsighted and is overlooking the fact that this is multigenerational infrastructure and the main purpose should be to serve as many people it can that aren’t currently serviced by LRT. This is money spent that will reduce the cost of living for people nearby for decades, spur development like TOD along the entire duration of the line, and be a new corridor that doesn’t carry the exorbitant maintenance costs of an equivalent amount of car lanes.

The original alignment along 113a and then 153ave should not change as this is the best option for how well the line integrates with the surrounding neighbourhoods and for how it provides LRT to an entirely new quadrant of the city. If the cost of a bridge keeps increasing as time goes on, then the only choice should be to build this step ASAP to minimize the cost. The amount of people in here who’s solution to kicking the can down the road is to continue kicking the can down the road is funny but also ridiculous. The quote from above of how the challenges with building this due to the location is all the more reason this should be built couldn’t have said it better. For thousands of people, with this bridge, the quickest way towards the centre of the city won’t be driving. How is this not a terrific way to help the car centric culture that we face here?

Even if funding for this means only one stop can be built after the bridge (132ave stop) then build it this way, and have the rest of the route completed with BRT along the original alignment that can then be converted to LRT with future funding. Building the bridge also ensures that the future BRT to LRT conversion will happen as this would be way too great of an investment to not be serviced by LRT for the full length.

This part is a more subjective take, but I don’t think we should be going for a budget build of the bridge either for the same reason this will be a piece of infrastructure that will stand for 50+ years. Think of the Walterdale bridge, during planning and construction all anyone talked about was the time and money for it and now it might be the most visual marketing piece of Edmonton. Yes a billion $ is a lot but it’s not like we (city/province/country combined) don’t have the money.

Walterdale is sort of a silly comparison. Central city, skyline, river valley, tourism area, green space, river.

This is rail yards, strip malls and low density homes around it. No need to blow cash on style here. Save it for the HLB replacement.

I agree with the time savings of a direct line. That’s a huge sell of this. Same way a 87ave crossing for the west end to uni would do wonders for transit use. But of course, at what cost? The opportunity cost of our downtown tunnel might be a decent comparison. Maybe long term the right call vs Calgary’s doing surface? But also has meant significantly lower LRT use for decades, less TOD, and whole generations adjusted to car-only lifestyles.

 

[cloney]

Walterdale is sort of a silly comparison. Central city, skyline, river valley, tourism area, green space, river.

This is rail yards, strip malls and low density homes around it. No need to blow cash on style here. Save it for the HLB replacement.

I agree with the time savings of a direct line. That’s a huge sell of this. Same way a 87ave crossing for the west end to uni would do wonders for transit use. But of course, at what cost? The opportunity cost of our downtown tunnel might be a decent comparison. Maybe long term the right call vs Calgary’s doing surface? But also has meant significantly lower LRT use for decades, less TOD, and whole generations adjusted to car-only lifestyles.

Fair points on the location and surroundings. The sheer magnitude means good or bad design is probably gonna be amplified. I guess it’s hard to compare bad vs good vs great design when all we’ve seen is the one render.

I think regarding the underground portion of dt LRT, the cons you list seem to be more from how the above ground was designed rather than the line being underground itself? I think the comparison to make with this and a lot of projects the city does is when trying to shift behaviour from building infrastructure , you can’t do half measures. The bike network really comes to mind with this as well as a lot of LRT routes.

 

[The_Cat]

What we don’t know is the City’s progress on negotiations with CN. I’m guessing, at this point, the negotiations are behind closed doors.

 

[yeggator]

I don't like any idea that requires the Metro Line to follow the Yellowhead. It requires even more construction and costs to the Yellowhead project, and there is already no space for an LRT. The highway is already squished thin between the CN railyard and the Beechmount Cemetery, and you want to slap the LRT right within it? Not a chance. You either have to cram it in the 6 metre wide median, which results in a major design problem when you want the LRT to go from the west/east of the YHT to the north/south of 97 Street, (97 Street is already a proper interchange, and I'm sure no one would be too happy to, again, add even more construction and costs to the Yellowhead project) or you can put the Metro Line on the north elevation of The YHT to make the turn easier. This will still require land from either side of the highway, and the reasons for the CN railyard being unwilling to give some land to help with the bridge will be the same for if the Metro Line follows the YHT.

Of course, there's the somewhat obvious argument that Edmonton made mistakes years ago when they design the Metro Line so that it's too far from 97 Street. Unfortunately, unless you want to rip up the Metro Line and realign it, this is just something we have to live with. Call it sunk cost fallacy, but I do genuinely believe that a bridge over the CN railyard is the most and only feasible option here.

You can’t directly slap the tracks in the median or either side of the highway, yes. But the median is wide enough to fit guideway piers. The width of the guideway itself might encroach on the lanes, but obviously above them. Plus, there’s vacant land by the 97th Street interchange where the guideway could curve north.

 

[yeggator]

Great work. Hopefully it’s passed along to the right city employees. Might also be worth sharing with Edmonton Transit Riders (if you aren’t connected already) and also sending to some city staff if you have any contacts for ETS, city managers, etc.

Let St Albert have BRT if they want it, but let’s not blow our budget on LRT to the NW for a tie in another city might never fund. Let’s go straight north and create a stronger feeder system like Calgary does where a lot of buses simply get people to the train.

I sent an email to Edmonton Transit Riders, but I’m not sure which city staff I should contact. Maybe Carrie Hotton-MacDonald? @Avenuer maybe you could pass something along

 

[yeggator]

The 97th street alignment has to be the worse option. Inaccessible to pedestrians limited transit access and the cost to reroute the line east would offset the savings of a cheaper crossing. Going straight north in the middle of the area it is meant to serve makes it equally accessible to everyone.

You might be right that it doesn’t offset the savings of a cheaper crossing by building a longer route. However, it has higher ridership potential, so that spreads the cost out more.

 

[Glenco]

CN will not negotiate until there is funding in place. They don’t want to waste their time.

 

[cloney]

The last estimate for the cost of the bridge was $200M in 2018, and now it’s being said it would cost as much as the entire rest of the line. Anyone smart enough to estimate what the cost of the bridge would be now based on that?

 

[thommyjo]

Fair points on the location and surroundings. The sheer magnitude means good or bad design is probably gonna be amplified. I guess it’s hard to compare bad vs good vs great design when all we’ve seen is the one render.

I think regarding the underground portion of dt LRT, the cons you list seem to be more from how the above ground was designed rather than the line being underground itself? I think the comparison to make with this and a lot of projects the city does is when trying to shift behaviour from building infrastructure , you can’t do half measures. The bike network really comes to mind with this as well as a lot of LRT routes.

Agreed on that. We gotta think longer term on these major projects. I think we should have done the valley lines like REM, metro extension should be fully grade separated and subway style frequencies. Stations should all be built for winter climate, not as busy stops. And then instead of on demand transit, we should have a valley line tram circular type route centrally.

Those would actually SHIFT behaviour like you said. Vs transit always being inferior to driving and basically only used by students and lower income people. Choice riders come if it’s convenient, comfortable, and safe.

 

[yeggator]

The last estimate for the cost of the bridge was $200M in 2018, and now it’s being said it would cost as much as the entire rest of the line. Anyone smart enough to estimate what the cost of the bridge would be now based on that?

The Capital Line South Extension costs $1.3 billion (in 2024 dollars, I believe) for a 4.5 km LRT extension that includes an underpass, a bridge over the creek, a bridge over the Henday, 2 stations and an OMF. A good chunk of the alignment is through the TUC and greenfield areas. I’m not sure if the new LRV order is included with that price tag. The Metro Line is a similar length (~4.2 km) with a ginormous bridge, 4 stations, and a 1 km trenched section that incorporates 1 of those stations. It runs through fully developed areas. I’d estimate that the value is roughly the same, but accounting for inflation, by the time we build the line, my bet is the extension would cost $1.6 billion. So that puts the bridge at $800 million?