Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

Thanks for the update.

Shame that bridge had such a short life, too bad they couldn't just add in a new bridge, even though the salesmen err consultants promised they would be keeping the brand new bridge...

Why it takes 800 days is another story, couldn't some form of pre-fabrication be employed?
 
Well @Habibfazil I'm no expert on bridges by any stretch of the imagination, but the reasons why they need to demolish the Stony Plain Road Bridge for a new one may be due to the old bridge being near the end of its lifespan, the need to build two LRT lines and a MUP in addition to the existing road and sidewalks, weight restrictions, having to acquire or expropriate adjacent property for a new bridge, and overall cost.
 
Habibfazil said:
Thanks for the update.

Shame that bridge had such a short life, too bad they couldn't just add in a new bridge, even though the salesmen err consultants promised they would be keeping the brand new bridge...

Why it takes 800 days is another story, couldn't some form of pre-fabrication be employed?
Click to expand...
I think you are maybe confusing the 102 ave bridge, which was recently replaced, with the Stony Plain Road bridge, which has been removed for this project and was closing in on requiring replacement anyway.
 
I wonder if they will purposefully allow rapid deformation of the beams to form that curve and simultaneously act as the 1% of public art (sculpture).
 
IanO said:
I wonder if they will purposefully allow rapid deformation of the beams to form that curve and simultaneously act as the 1% of public art (sculpture).
Click to expand...
I sure hope bridge-itis is not contagious and the new bridge will not catch this ailment from its neighbouring bridge immediately to the south.
 
Here’s a pic at Wagner Road. Some of the piers are showing the concrete work and repairs:
B646C6AE-A3F0-43A5-9666-71D71E61BF5F.jpeg
 
Not at all, 102nd was done in the past few years.

Stoney Plain road was done about 10-15 years ago, around the time the city discarded the old trolley coach network.

At the public information meetings the new tram line to the west showed tracks and only 2 lanes of traffic. They were asked if the bridge fairly new bridge needed placement, and no. Of course they also mentioned they could tuck away all the overhead vs that trolley coach overhead...
 
Habibfazil said:
Not at all, 102nd was done in the past few years.

Stoney Plain road was done about 10-15 years ago, around the time the city discarded the old trolley coach network.

At the public information meetings the new tram line to the west showed tracks and only 2 lanes of traffic. They were asked if the bridge fairly new bridge needed placement, and no. Of course they also mentioned they could tuck away all the overhead vs that trolley coach overhead...
Click to expand...
The Stony Plain Road bridge over Groat Road might have been rehabbed 15 years ago, but that bridge was not replaced it turns out. I'll be damned, because I thought it was and I seem to recall the talk of just running the trains on the existing bridge. I seem to even recall the shuttle bus that was used.

So... I went digging.

"It is unknown, at this time, if the existing bridge contains any hazardous materials but since the bridge is more than 50 years old and contains embedded communication conduits, the bridge will be tested for asbestos and other hazardous materials content prior to demolition and if containing hazardous material, will be handled and disposed accordingly"

So it was indeed older than 50 years back in 2018.

By March 2011 the talk was a new bridge over Groat Road.

Edit: The refurbishment was in 2013 and cost $4 million.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the current (or former, I guess) Stony Plain Road Bridge was surprisingly old. I never paid it much mind, just thinking it was from the '60s or something. However, it turns out work on the crossing started in 1953 in preparation for the construction of Groat Road. A simple ravine-fill previously allowed traffic to cross the gulch. From the minutes of City Council, May 11th, 1953:

Council Minutes, SPR Bridge, May 11, 1953.jpg

And the fill in 1948 and bridge in 1957, respectively:
SPR Fill, 1948.jpg
SPR Bridge, 1957.jpg
 
Thank you for the information about the bridge being rehabbed vs new, I stand corrected 👍👍👍

Guess this makes sense for replacement, but 800 days, can't fathom that timeline. Here's hoping we don't see more Montreal style concrete work 😉
 
TAS said:
Except valley east is only 13km for $1.8B, not 27km.

Valley Line West adds another 14km for an additional $2.7B.

So it's $4.5B for 27km + some other features.

Add in operational costs and it's pretty significant. I still support it.

Those 100+km of bike lanes for $100M look pretty good to me as another viable way to move people around though. 😁
Click to expand...
I think its worth point out that in Europe and Asia Metros can be built for as little as $100m per kilometer (full big trains etc), the Canada Line in Vancouver was built for substantially less than the Valley Line and is entirely in tunnels / elevated + its a metro, albeit with lower capacity than something like the Toronto Subway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top