Confederation Line East LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Blair to Trim] | U/C

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

Posted by nalnal May 5th on the Trillium thread, but thought it should be posted on the East and West Stage 2 threads as well:

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

Amazing how quickly they were able to get this done.

• Video Link

[GeoNerd]

This might be a dumb question, but why spend the money to demolish this bridge? Why not just leave it in place? Leave it abandoned, or plant some shrubs up top, or use it as an emergency access, or anything. There is enough room for the new tracks to get by to the north and the bridge looked like it was in good shape. Why spend many thousands just to bring some rubble to a landfill? What am I missing here?

[Dzingle Bells]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

This might be a dumb question, but why spend the money to demolish this bridge? Why not just leave it in place? Leave it abandoned, or plant some shrubs up top, or use it as an emergency access, or anything. There is enough room for the new tracks to get by to the north and the bridge looked like it was in good shape. Why spend many thousands just to bring some rubble to a landfill? What am I missing here?

One word - maintenance.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Dzingle Bells

One word - maintenance.

That’s just it, without the bridge in use, there would be virtually no maintenance. Other than the eventual decay, which would be many years away, it cost more to tear it down than to just leave it in place. Kind of a head scratcher considering the cutbacks in other areas.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

That’s just it, without the bridge in use, there would be virtually no maintenance. Other than the eventual decay, which would be many years away, it cost more to tear it down than to just leave it in place. Kind of a head scratcher considering the cutbacks in other areas.

It will need to be demolished at some point. The pears would continue to be exposed to the salt and grime from the 174. Cheaper and easier (space wise without an active rail line in the way) to demolish now rather than 10 years into the future.

If there would have been pathways or development across the highway, it might have been worth keeping as an active transportation bridge, but that's not the case.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It will need to be demolished at some point. The pears would continue to be exposed to the salt and grime from the 174. Cheaper and easier (space wise without an active rail line in the way) to demolish now rather than 10 years into the future.

And who would pay for the demolition in 10 years. Currently it is part of the Stage 2 project budget (which is only 1/3 paid for by the city). In 10 years, the responsibility would fall to the city.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If there would have been pathways or development across the highway, it might have been worth keeping as an active transportation bridge, but that's not the case.

It could have been useful as a pathway, but it wasn't on of the lines on the TMP.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It will need to be demolished at some point. The pears would continue to be exposed to the salt and grime from the 174. Cheaper and easier (space wise without an active rail line in the way) to demolish now rather than 10 years into the future.

If there would have been pathways or development across the highway, it might have been worth keeping as an active transportation bridge, but that's not the case.

It would take a very very long time for salt spray and grime from the 174 to corrode an unused concrete bridge to the point of needing demolition. Just an unnecessary and stupid way to spend much needed capital.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

It would take a very very long time for salt spray and grime from the 174 to corrode an unused concrete bridge to the point of needing demolition. Just an unnecessary and stupid way to spend much needed capital.

You are aware of the bridge that decided to shed some pieces on the 403 in Brantford? If they are not using it, why keep it?

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are aware of the bridge that decided to shed some pieces on the 403 in Brantford? If they are not using it, why keep it?

You are aware a piece of construction equipment hit that bridge, it didn't just decide to shed some pieces?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Harley613

You are aware a piece of construction equipment hit that bridge, it didn't just decide to shed some pieces?

And that cannot happen in Ottawa?

Point is, if it is not in use, and they have the opportunity to remove it, then why keep it?

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And that cannot happen in Ottawa?

Point is, if it is not in use, and they have the opportunity to remove it, then why keep it?

That’s the same mentality used when we ripped up half the railroads only to realize years later they were still useful. Or almost tore down Union Station/Conference centre/Senate building. Why not tear down everything that isn’t currently being used? Send everything to a landfill. Fear of a freak accident is not a reason to start tearing everything down. Yes it was only a highway overpass/bridge, but it was not even close to end of life and cost nothing to keep. Maybe it could get repurposed one day. Look at the Prince of Wales/Chief Commanda Bridge. Instead we spend unknown thousands to send it to a landfill. Maybe we could have used some of those unknown thousands towards twining more of line 2, or creating a proper Trim Road overpass, or a new Dow’s Lake tunnel. What a waste of needed resources.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

That’s the same mentality used when we ripped up half the railroads only to realize years later they were still useful. Or almost tore down Union Station/Conference centre/Senate building. Why not tear down everything that isn’t currently being used? Send everything to a landfill. Fear of a freak accident is not a reason to start tearing everything down. Yes it was only a highway overpass/bridge, but it was not even close to end of life and cost nothing to keep. Maybe it could get repurposed one day. Look at the Prince of Wales/Chief Commanda Bridge. Instead we spend unknown thousands to send it to a landfill. Maybe we could have used some of those unknown thousands towards twining more of line 2, or creating a proper Trim Road overpass, or a new Dow’s Lake tunnel. What a waste of needed resources.

100% of the materials from that bridge will be recycled and most likely on site.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by hwy418

100% of the materials from that bridge will be recycled and most likely on site.

Very doubtful considering the rebar content. It needs to be separated and almost certainly not returned on-site and not even close to 100% recycled. It is often still sent to landfill. Do you have a source for that wild claim? Also, you've missed the point completely. Whether it is eventually recycled into granular B for another project or dumped, it was money spent on destroying a perfectly fine bridge on a project with many cut corners.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

That’s the same mentality used when we ripped up half the railroads only to realize years later they were still useful. Or almost tore down Union Station/Conference centre/Senate building. Why not tear down everything that isn’t currently being used? Send everything to a landfill. Fear of a freak accident is not a reason to start tearing everything down. Yes it was only a highway overpass/bridge, but it was not even close to end of life and cost nothing to keep. Maybe it could get repurposed one day. Look at the Prince of Wales/Chief Commanda Bridge. Instead we spend unknown thousands to send it to a landfill. Maybe we could have used some of those unknown thousands towards twining more of line 2, or creating a proper Trim Road overpass, or a new Dow’s Lake tunnel. What a waste of needed resources.

There's a huge difference between an abandoned railway or building, and a bridge across a busy highway. The former can be left to rot in place with minimal risk, while the latter requires constant upkeep to keep it safe, let alone be able to use it in the future. We know how quickly bridges deteriorate if left unchecked - just look at the POW/Commanda bridge, which will require significant work to turn into a pedestrian bridge, and will likely never be able to support a train again due to lack of upkeep. Bridges also have shorter lifespans than buildings or railways. If there was some long-term plan that might have made use of this bridge keeping it may have been worthwhile, but there isn't so it absolutely makes sense to remove it.

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Very doubtful considering the rebar content. It needs to be separated and almost certainly not returned on-site and not even close to 100% recycled. It is often still sent to landfill. Do you have a source for that wild claim? Also, you've missed the point completely. Whether it is eventually recycled into granular B for another project or dumped, it was money spent on destroying a perfectly fine bridge on a project with many cut corners.

The company brought in to do the demolition, Priestly, is Ontario's largest demolition contractor. Absolutely almost 100% of the rebar will be separated and sent for recycling, as it has significant scrap value. Many landfills won't handle demolition materials like this without them being separated first anyways. Priestly isn't new to this game, recovery of demolition materials is a huge market and results in cost savings over disposal.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by Catenary

There's a huge difference between an abandoned railway or building, and a bridge across a busy highway. The former can be left to rot in place with minimal risk, while the latter requires constant upkeep to keep it safe, let alone be able to use it in the future. We know how quickly bridges deteriorate if left unchecked - just look at the POW/Commanda bridge, which will require significant work to turn into a pedestrian bridge, and will likely never be able to support a train again due to lack of upkeep. Bridges also have shorter lifespans than buildings or railways. If there was some long-term plan that might have made use of this bridge keeping it may have been worthwhile, but there isn't so it absolutely makes sense to remove it.



The company brought in to do the demolition, Priestly, is Ontario's largest demolition contractor. Absolutely almost 100% of the rebar will be separated and sent for recycling, as it has significant scrap value. Many landfills won't handle demolition materials like this without them being separated first anyways. Priestly isn't new to this game, recovery of demolition materials is a huge market and results in cost savings over disposal.

I can confirm first hand that I have seen them separate the rebar from the concrete as I was driving on the 174 on Monday morning. As a witness, his claim is proven.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Catenary

There's a huge difference between an abandoned railway or building, and a bridge across a busy highway. The former can be left to rot in place with minimal risk, while the latter requires constant upkeep to keep it safe, let alone be able to use it in the future. We know how quickly bridges deteriorate if left unchecked - just look at the POW/Commanda bridge, which will require significant work to turn into a pedestrian bridge, and will likely never be able to support a train again due to lack of upkeep. Bridges also have shorter lifespans than buildings or railways. If there was some long-term plan that might have made use of this bridge keeping it may have been worthwhile, but there isn't so it absolutely makes sense to remove it.

The company brought in to do the demolition, Priestly, is Ontario's largest demolition contractor. Absolutely almost 100% of the rebar will be separated and sent for recycling, as it has significant scrap value. Many landfills won't handle demolition materials like this without them being separated first anyways. Priestly isn't new to this game, recovery of demolition materials is a huge market and results in cost savings over disposal.

You’re comparing a 142 year old steel truss rail bridge to a relatively new concrete overpass. I’m shocked at how many people believe an unused concrete structure will quickly deteriorate and become unsafe. It’s actually quite comical.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your stats from, but it’s virtually impossible to get 100% recycling. Some companies claim into the 90 percentile, which is a stretch, especially with a rebar product. Again though, you seem to be missing the point and concentrating on whether it’s been recycled or sent to landfill. The original point was how it’s a waste of money to remove something that wasn’t necessary.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Very doubtful considering the rebar content. It needs to be separated and almost certainly not returned on-site and not even close to 100% recycled. It is often still sent to landfill. Do you have a source for that wild claim? Also, you've missed the point completely. Whether it is eventually recycled into granular B for another project or dumped, it was money spent on destroying a perfectly fine bridge on a project with many cut corners.

I'm a civil engineer who is directly involved in similar projects including rapid bridge replacements and demolition. That specific bridge was designed by a former colleague who has since retired.

If you drive by the site you will note that all the steel and concrete were separated in separate piles so that they can be recycled. These materials are way too valuable to be dumped into a landfill.

It's the roadway authority's (City in this case) call on whether to keep a structure or not, but from my experience they don't want to carry maintenance costs indefinitely for a hypothetical future purpose.

The demolished structure most likely did not meet the modern bridge code requirements for seismic design. Also, the parapet walls would need to be retrofitted to meet the latest crash ratings and new ped/cyclist railings to be used for anything else other than it's original purpose.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I'm a civil engineer who is directly involved in similar projects including rapid bridge replacements and demolition. That specific bridge was designed by a former colleague who has since retired.

If you drive by the site you will note that all the steel and concrete were separated in separate piles so that they can be recycled. These materials are way too valuable to be dumped into a landfill.

It's the roadway authority's (City in this case) call on whether to keep a structure or not, but from my experience they don't want to carry maintenance costs indefinitely for a hypothetical future purpose.

The demolished structure most likely did not meet the modern bridge code requirements for seismic design. Also, the parapet walls would need to be retrofitted to meet the latest crash ratings and new ped/cyclist railings to be used for anything else other than it's original purpose.

Being a civil engineer isn’t really relevant. That’s like bring a paediatrician and commenting on open heart surgery. A structural engineer would determine material longevity and seismic designs of the specific bridge. At this point we’re just creating wildly fictional synopses to demolish a bridge before it’s lifespan without any actual facts. As for the recycling vs landfill, it is a moot point and I regret even mentioning it as it has become a red herring.