HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3061  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2010, 3:30 PM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
So why not do it right and do a cut&cover (or other shallow tunnelling method) which would have a better result, cost less and cause only slightly more disruption?

The promise of using a TBM is minimal disruption, but it clearly isn't the case here. We're looking at considerable disruption anyway.
City council has mandated the team to come out with a cheaper tunnel alternative. (I still don't understand why it's not up to the bidders to decide this)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3062  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2010, 5:57 PM
GoTrans GoTrans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 695
Why should there be any more disruption here than with any other tunnel project? The 50.5 km Chunnel project between the UK and France was bored with only entrances on either side of the channel. The CP Rail 14.7 km Mt. McDonald tunnel project in Rogers Pass bored through the mountain with the only entrances required for the TBM were on either side of the mountain. In the Mt McDonald project a ventilation shaft was bored downward from higher up on the mountain in order to provide fresh air for operating diesel locomotives. Had CP built this for electric locomotives there would not have been any necessity to build the shaft other than as an escape route should passengers become stranded in the tunnel.
The disruption will due to the construction of the stations. There would be much disruption for station construction even if the line is built on the surface. Once the tunnel is bored, the construction of the stations can begin from both top down and bottom up. This means that much of the waste material can be removed through the tunnel thereby minimizing disruption on the surface.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3063  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2010, 7:59 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Government to announce rail funding soon: Baird

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Government+announce+rail+funding+soon+Baird/2505213/story.html
THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 31, 2010


The federal government will announce in "short order" its funding commitment for the city's proposed light-rail project, John Baird said Saturday. "There will be a report in short order. It's just a matter of time," said the minister of transport, infrastructure and communities. Baird said he had a "good meeting" last week on the light-rail issue with Ontario Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne and also met with and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Brad Duguid. "They're two good people and I'm confident that we'll be able to work well together," he said, adding he met separately with Ottawa councillor Alex Cullen, chair of the city's transit committee. "

We're going to make a decision about magnitude, obviously there are approvals required, obviously we've also got to ensure that everything we do is balanced. Kitchener-Waterloo has needs, Hamilton has needs." He declined to be more specific about the timing of an announcement.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3064  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2010, 8:06 PM
blackjagger's Avatar
blackjagger blackjagger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 287
Vague, but positive. It will be interesting to see if they match the $600 Million or if they approve the full $700 Million that was asked for.

Cheers,
Josh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3065  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2010, 2:27 AM
AuxTown's Avatar
AuxTown AuxTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 4,648
Quote:
The 50.5 km Chunnel project between the UK and France was bored with only entrances on either side of the channel
That project cost over 4 billion pounds in 1985 so I don't even want to calculate how much that works out to now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3066  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2010, 4:23 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
I don't think comparisons to remote rail tunnels is a valid comparison for a rapid transit tunnel in an urban area with respect to disruption effects. Moreover, Richard's point with respect to disruption was not regarding the bored tunnel and mined stations downtown but rather the works at Campus Station (TBM recovery, cut & cover station) and the cut & cover tunnel between Campus and Lees. Richard has done a good analysis of what will be required based on the published report and experience elsewhere and it looks pretty convincing to me.

Personally, given the willingness to move Campus Station further from the campus itself, I question why they didn't examine an alignment beneath the university and/or King Edward instead.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3067  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 12:28 AM
p_xavier p_xavier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey View Post
That project cost over 4 billion pounds in 1985 so I don't even want to calculate how much that works out to now.
To be fair, it was 3 tunnels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3068  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 1:22 AM
GoTrans GoTrans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 695
Why does it matter whether the tunnel is remote or not in determining how much surface impact is caused by construction? The point I am making is that there is very little surface impact since most of the work is going on below the surface except for station construction. The examples I chose were to show that the length of the tunnel and the type of terrain do not have an impact on the disruption the tunnel construction itself causes. Construction of anything causes disruption. The question is whether the finished product is worth the disruption.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3069  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 1:49 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTrans View Post
Why does it matter whether the tunnel is remote or not in determining how much surface impact is caused by construction? The point I am making is that there is very little surface impact since most of the work is going on below the surface except for station construction. The examples I chose were to show that the length of the tunnel and the type of terrain do not have an impact on the disruption the tunnel construction itself causes. Construction of anything causes disruption. The question is whether the finished product is worth the disruption.
With stations every 750 m, should probably be every 500 m downtown, it doesn't matter very much if the short tunnel in between is being bored or dug out. If cut&cover (or some variation) is used, the cross-streets can probably be impacted minimally, in a worst case, a type of steel bridge could be laid across the trench. Certainly doesn't look like rocket science.

The city either painted itself in a corner as far as choosing a tunnelling method because they chose a "cross-country" route. Either that or they already decided they want a bored tunnel (which drove the cross-country selection) and don't care it will be 9 storeys below ground. It's not about the riders anyway (in their minds).
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3070  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 4:45 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
A decision to go for a bored tunnel was pretty much assumed, but that in and of itself did not lead to the "cross-country" route. It allowed for it, true, but did not drive it. The long-standing assumption from the time of the 1988 bus tunnel study was that we would get bored tunnels under one (rail) or two (bus) of Slater, Albert and Queen and that the stations would be built by cut & cover. It was generally expected that the route on the east side of the Canal would follow Daly under the Rideau Centre (again, from the 1988 study).


At any rate, the surface disruption that Richard was writing about is in the Campus-Lees area, where *everything* will be done by cut & cover.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3071  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 6:05 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
A decision to go for a bored tunnel was pretty much assumed, but that in and of itself did not lead to the "cross-country" route. It allowed for it, true, but did not drive it. The long-standing assumption from the time of the 1988 bus tunnel study was that we would get bored tunnels under one (rail) or two (bus) of Slater, Albert and Queen and that the stations would be built by cut & cover. It was generally expected that the route on the east side of the Canal would follow Daly under the Rideau Centre (again, from the 1988 study).


At any rate, the surface disruption that Richard was writing about is in the Campus-Lees area, where *everything* will be done by cut & cover.
Yes, disruptions of that sort at both ends and at each station exacerbated by the depth but perhaps helped by the ability to move material underground. Don't see why a shallow tunnel could not also move material underground though.
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3072  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 6:17 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,632
^ at some point you get too shallow to bore. It is more a cost thing for the rest, since they will already have the rails laid for 'boring', or a system of conveyors the marginal cost of moving the station cavern material out would likely be less that driving a direct shaft from the surface at first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3073  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 7:02 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,811
Why are transit riders not the primary concern? It seems that a tunnel 10 storeys below grade is not very convenient
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3074  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 9:11 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,674
I keep reading/hearing comments about the depth of the tunnel so let’s take a serious look at that:

A general rule of thumb is that your TBM should be at least 1 to 1.5 tunnel diameters below any obstacles or grade. It looks as if Staff is planning for a 6 metre bore so that is the first constraint – the tunnel should be at least 6-9 m below grade or any existing underground utilities or obstacles. But the tunnel is probably not the prime constraint; the stations are since they will be mined out to a radius of 10-12 metres. If the same rule of thumb held, then there should be 20-24 metres between the top of the stations and anything we don’t want falling into those stations.

So what is determining the depth of the tunnel and stations?



Because the Downtown-West Station is of central-platform configuration, with a high arch over the center, the station is fairly wide and needs to be sensitive to the depth of the buildings on either side of it. I don’t know how many levels of underground parking exist under the Constitution Square Building, but there are five underground parking levels under the Place de Ville. If I assume three metres per level, then the building foundation would descend 15 metres. This constraint is shown on the diagram in fuchsia.

And now the bad news: The building’s depth was likely achieved by blasting. Blasting fractures rock and, unfortunately, it does not just act in an upward direction. The rock under the lowest level of the building will also be fractured. Given that the stations will be mined out from inside the tunnel, up and between the two tunnels, there will be times when there will be very little support of the overburden material. If it is fractured, the rock might start to fall. Leaving a larger buffer is a safe thing to do. This is much less of an issue for the actual tunnel since, I believe, Staff has decided to use a TBM which builds a tunnel lining out of precast segments. This means that the tunnel overburden is always supported so it doesn’t really matter how loose the overburden is. (The lining became a requirement when the tunnel was extended through the alluvial deposits of Sandy Hill.)

So the steep descent (5%) and the depth of the Downtown-West Station are needed because the station extends beside the Place de Ville with its five levels of underground parking.

The Downtown-East Station has the same kind of constraint under the Sunlife Building since there are four levels of parking under the east tower. (The west tower sits over only three levels of parking.)



Since there is extra buffer room above this station, it might be possible to raise this station, but if the next station, Rideau, has a lower constraint, then this station would be kept low to avoid the ‘roller-coaster’ effect.

You can see from the Rideau Station picture that the building foundations are not the main constraint for this station’s depth; it is the two sewer pipes. These two pipes are nearly 20 metres underground and there would have been lots of blasting involved in laying them that deep. Notice that the station is directly under the pipes.



Thus the depth of the tunnel is really being dictated by the positioning of the stations. Had the station locations been chosen differently (say, based on what was under ground) then the tunnel could be less deep. As it happens, the east end of the Downtown-East Station will be roughly 43 metres deep; or approximately 12 stories underground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3075  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2010, 10:13 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
A decision to go for a bored tunnel was pretty much assumed, but that in and of itself did not lead to the "cross-country" route. It allowed for it, true, but did not drive it. The long-standing assumption from the time of the 1988 bus tunnel study was that we would get bored tunnels under one (rail) or two (bus) of Slater, Albert and Queen and that the stations would be built by cut & cover. It was generally expected that the route on the east side of the Canal would follow Daly under the Rideau Centre (again, from the 1988 study).


At any rate, the surface disruption that Richard was writing about is in the Campus-Lees area, where *everything* will be done by cut & cover.
Is that study available online?
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3076  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2010, 1:24 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Is [the 1988 bus tunnel] study available online?
No, it was produced long before the era of the internet in which things were prepared with a view towards electronic transmission/distribution. It's probably sitting in Delcan's archive of 5.25" floppy disks in WordPerfect format (maybe PostScript if you're lucky), but that would be the extent of it. Otherwise it's only available in hard copy at the library so if you want an electronic version you'll have to try to get it scanned.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3077  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2010, 1:42 AM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,425
If the public library doesn't have a copy, one of the university libraries almost certainly does. I seem to recall seeing a copy of it at the University of Waterloo's Government Documents section, so I would hope that one of the universities in Ottawa would also have a copy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3078  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2010, 2:22 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 2,674
Franky, in the Ottawa Room of the Central Library (Metcalfe at Laurier) ask for Oversized 388.41322 D345. I think that should get you what you are looking for. It is called "Report on the Feasibility of A Grade Separated Transitway through the Central Area of Ottawa" by Delcan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3079  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2010, 4:26 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
Franky, in the Ottawa Room of the Central Library (Metcalfe at Laurier) ask for Oversized 388.41322 D345. I think that should get you what you are looking for. It is called "Report on the Feasibility of A Grade Separated Transitway through the Central Area of Ottawa" by Delcan.
Thanks!
__________________
Francois
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3080  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2010, 5:05 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
I keep reading/hearing comments about the depth of the tunnel so let’s take a serious look at that:

...
Thank you so much for that.

So the options would seem to narrow down to deep TBM tunnel, shallower TBM tunnel with constricted routing, or cut & cover.

I wonder what kind of risks and mitigation would be required to do cut & cover next to building foundations, in the middle of a mess of underground services, and with active businesses and buildings opening onto the construction site. Having done some relatively narrow trenches for their service renewals on Bank Street, the city may not feel comfortable pushing the limits on narrow streets with heavy buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.