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

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

GeoNerd, your recycling 'facts' aside, are you ok with your future taxes going to pay for the annual engineer to review the bridge, for the occasional ice clearing after a storm, for the inevitable concrete repair program for this bridge as it continues to be sprayed with salt, and for the eventual demolition for quadruple the price 20 years from now? We're probably talking about at least $50k/year, plus concrete repairs at $200-300k in 5-10 (plus traffic control during), plus another few milly when it's ready to be demolished, including ripping up the eventual permanent concrete barricades lining the highway and repaving, rather than swinging the temporary barricades out of the way in the current configuration, baked into a contract that already includes plenty of other work to the surroundings.

It was not in 100% fine condition to begin with, and it would have required annual money in the budget to continue to 'let it rot' as we say in the industry.

I highly doubt the cost/benefit analysis was as favourable as you're imagining.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

Do you know what the branch of engineering that designs bridges are?

Civil engineers.

So, what you are saying in your comparison is bringing a heart specialist in to hear about open heart surgery.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

To the contrary, the structural engineer career is through the civil engineer program in university. Both study of building structures and soil strength go hand in hand. And your view in discrediting his qualifications is very shallow. I would value his opinion way more than a random person on a forum not knowing the latter's qualifications. I would assume that in his professional career he probably encountered other projects where this type of decision was made. So he would know first hand.

Also you are "creating wildly fictional" use of a pointless bridge. No one from Costco or Beacon Hill South would cross a windy Hwy bridge to go to the back side of a golf course. a crossing at Jasmine park would be much better suited "if ever" there was a need to access the wooded area across the Hwy.

[GeoNerd]

Thank you all for explaining to me, someone that’s been in land development for over 20 years what a civil engineer does. It’s been very helpful. Having worked for some of the largest civil engineering firms in the world I was completely unaware of these rudimentary facts.

Civil engineering is a blanket term. A bridge is not getting built without a structural engineer. Plain and simple.

If you guys think general maintenance on an unused and relatively new concrete overpass even for +10 years surpasses the cost of complete demolition, I have some magic beans to sell you.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Thank you all for explaining to me, someone that’s been in land development for over 20 years what a civil engineer does. It’s been very helpful. Having worked for some of the largest civil engineering firms in the world I was completely unaware of these rudimentary facts.

Civil engineering is a blanket term. A bridge is not getting built without a structural engineer. Plain and simple.

If you guys think general maintenance on an unused and relatively new concrete overpass even for +10 years surpasses the cost of complete demolition, I have some magic beans to sell you.

Like I said, I didn't know your qualification and career experience. I'm not discrediting you, but for something to have credibility it just has to be clear.

But regardless, what did you want to use the bridge for?

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

Like I said, I didn't know your qualification and career experience. I'm not discrediting you, but for something to have credibility it just has to be clear.

But regardless, what did you want to use the bridge for?

Coulda put a bridge extension overtop of the rail to the north to connect to Costco Gas, and then a bike path through Green's creek to the east and over to BlackBurn Hamlet? Kids could then bike over to Costco for gallons of gas and bulk cheese?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Coulda put a bridge extension overtop of the rail to the north to connect to Costco Gas, and then a bike path through Green's creek to the east and over to BlackBurn Hamlet? Kids could then bike over to Costco for gallons of gas and bulk cheese?

It certainly could have provided an interesting MUP to connect Trillium Park, Earl Armstrong Arena and Gloucester High School (etc) to Blackburn Hamlet, but the construction of the MUP likely wouldn't be easy or cheap.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

It was a local example, but sure. If you don't like it, just look at all the other bridges in the area built a decade or two before this one that are now undergoing expensive refurbishments or replacement. These things don't last forever.

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

You've mentioned that you clearly understand how structural engineering is a specialization of civil engineering, so this comment seems to have been made in bad faith.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It certainly could have provided an interesting MUP to connect Trillium Park, Earl Armstrong Arena and Gloucester High School (etc) to Blackburn Hamlet, but the construction of the MUP likely wouldn't be easy or cheap.

This is the greater point. What could we have used this bridge for? I don't like tearing down things with a useful life but if they have no purpose or potential purpose, then it doesn't make sense to maintain them for no purpose. Any MUP would also require a bridge over the LRT, at which point it would likely be cheaper in the long term to built a combined MUP bridge over both than continue maintaining an oversized bridge.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

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.

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough in my response. I'm a highway design engineer with nearly 20 years experience and I work on all sorts of transportation infrastructure across Canada. I was directly involved on 7 or 8 rapid bridge replacement projects on Highway 417 in Ottawa and the 401 in Toronto. I worked for the firm that designed most of the original Transitway roadways and bridges (including this bridge). I'm not a structural engineer, but I work directly with them on all aspects of the design so I know what I'm talking about.

[OTownandDown]

so anyways...

I drove to Orleans last night and was impressed with the scale of construction. Seeing the steel frames at the overpass stations was a good sign! Can't wait to see it come together.

Also impressed with the minimal damage removing the bridge incurred.

Can anyone comment on salt spray in the winter? Couldn't help but feel for the train driver who will need to rely on windshield washer fluid driving down the highway like the rest of us...

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

so anyways...

I drove to Orleans last night and was impressed with the scale of construction. Seeing the steel frames at the overpass stations was a good sign! Can't wait to see it come together.

Also impressed with the minimal damage removing the bridge incurred.

Can anyone comment on salt spray in the winter? Couldn't help but feel for the train driver who will need to rely on windshield washer fluid driving down the highway like the rest of us...

Unlike Nicholas which drains towards the LRT, the 174 drains away from the middle into the sides. This should have some effect on reducing the spray. Obviously there will still be some, but these vehicles are designed for mixed traffic use and likely have some consideration for that.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Unlike Nicholas which drains towards the LRT, the 174 drains away from the middle into the sides. This should have some effect on reducing the spray. Obviously there will still be some, but these vehicles are designed for mixed traffic use and likely have some consideration for that.

Good Day.

I hope you're right,
but recall that this design vehicle is the first useage (despite running since 2019 here) in North America / Canada / high salt useage.
And having driven the 417 - 174 often enough through the years, the spray issue is still enormous (IMHO).

And mixed-traffic useage is most generally at lower speed than the 174 - 417 highway speeds, thus reducing the spray problem to some degree.

We Can Hope !

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Catenary

It was a local example, but sure. If you don't like it, just look at all the other bridges in the area built a decade or two before this one that are now undergoing expensive refurbishments or replacement. These things don't last forever.

..................

but if they have no purpose or potential purpose, then it doesn't make sense to maintain them for no purpose. Any MUP would also require a bridge over the LRT, at which point it would likely be cheaper in the long term to built a combined MUP bridge over both than continue maintaining an oversized bridge.

Good Day.

Double up on this.

Recall specifically the attempt to retain the bridge at Bayview (to reduce costs).
The salt corrosion ruled it out so badly that it collapsed as it was being demolished.
Although we never did see the final report on that incident, it was widely considered a salt collapse.
The TransitWay was so heavily salted over the years that all the bridges were re-examined after this incident.

And though the PoW bridge dies not compare exactly to the Transitway bridges, it does show the massive cumulative effect of massive neglect of maintenance.
Penny-wise .vs. pound-foolish attempt to save costs short-term .vs. long-term.

And finally, the Blair eastbound Transitway flyover was built light-weight, meant to carry only a light load of bus traffic in one direction.
This made any attempt to consider retaining it for some nebulous future purpose all the more improbable and problematic.
So even a best-intention attempt to retain it would almost certainly cost more than it would be worth.

2 cents.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

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.

Well, at this point, I think the City will be funding closer to 50%. But yeah, better to bring it down now while you have the space and cost is bundled with the rest of the project.

[Richard Eade]

Even if that Transitway fly-over had, say, 15 years left, what three construction/deconstruction projects can you name that became less expensive by delaying them 15 years?

If there is a foreseeable, short-term, end of life approaching, and you have the option to do the work now, then do it now. It will only be more expensive to do it later.

[sseguin]

Stage 2 LRT Update - A Look at the Progress of the O-Train Expansion in Ottawa - May 2022

Recently, the City of Ottawa delivered an update on Stage 2 LRT progress in the city. Stage 2 expands the O-Train service in the East from Blair to Trim, in the West from Tunney's Pasture to Algonquin and Moodie, and in the South from Bayview to Limebank and the Airport.

In this video, I discuss and provide my take on some of the important progress being realized on these massive construction and infrastructure projects across the city.

The photos contained in this video were provided by the City of Ottawa and mostly date from Q2 2022.

00:00 - Introduction
00:44 - East Extension (Blair to Trim)
15:26 - West Extension (Westboro to Moodie and Algonquin)
33:36 - South Extension (Bayview to Limebank)
50:08 - Wrap Up and Closing

—-ERRATUM—-
In the video, it is mentioned that the new East pathway that passes over Green’s Creek will continue to Jeanne d’Arc. This was an error, the pathway will run from Blair and end at the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway. Existing pathways (despite being longer than a direct route could have been) can be used to reach Jeanne d’Arc (via the parkway and not alongside the 174).

• Video Link

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Even if that Transitway fly-over had, say, 15 years left, what three construction/deconstruction projects can you name that became less expensive by delaying them 15 years?

If there is a foreseeable, short-term, end of life approaching, and you have the option to do the work now, then do it now. It will only be more expensive to do it later.

And the later demolition would have to be more delicate and expensive work, vs. brute force heavy machinery whacking the living snot out of a brid— oh god I've made bad career decisions.

[GeoNerd]

I love how the armchair urbanists and armchair engineers on this forum truly believe that this bridge would be on the verge of collapse within 10-15 years. It’s honestly too ridiculous to even reply to. There are highly trafficked concrete bridges this city that are over 100 years old.

Again, what many can’t seem to comprehend, I’m not saying that keeping an unused bridge for future considerations is a great idea, but with such a razor thin budget and so many cut corners on stage 2, it seem like a poor allocation of present-day funds to demolish it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I love how the armchair urbanists and armchair engineers on this forum truly believe that this bridge would be on the verge of collapse within 10-15 years. It’s honestly too ridiculous to even reply to. There are highly trafficked concrete bridges this city that are over 100 years old.

Again, what many can’t seem to comprehend, I’m not saying that keeping an unused bridge for future considerations is a great idea, but with such a razor thin budget and so many cut corners on stage 2, it seem like a poor allocation of present-day funds to demolish it.

Consider the geometry then. The Bridge is very close to the u/c rail line. Close enough that it probably needs to go before we start creating the rail corridor and laying the track.

In the case where maybe it doesn't need to go in order to build the track, if one day, say in 30 years if you prefer, we need to demolish it, we won't have the same amount of space to do it.

In a scenario where we keep it in case we need it, how would that work? Where it end on the north side, there's no room to have extend it over the tracks.

Here's the location of the rail relative to the future O-Train:

Rail Fans Map:
https://map.railfans.ca/#17.81/45.434906/-75.600593

Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/c.../data=!3m1!1e3

Google Streetview:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4349...7i16384!8i8192

I cannot foresee any scenario where this bridge could somehow be reused in the future. The one miniscule possibly is not worth keeping it around and maintaining it. Easier and cheaper to just tear it down now, which likely makes for an easier and cheaper build of the new rail line.

You used PoW as an example of a bridge that is about to get a new vocation. The bridge was used and maintained up until the 2000s. We could see it's possible usefulness as soon as it was shuttered from its primary use. It was in a spot that didn't disturb any other infrastructure or work. We are now, 20 or so years later, converting it to handle new uses with much lighter loads. If ever we look into placing trains on it again, I suspect they will decide to just build a new bridge (possibly parallel, keeping PoW for active transportation).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I love how the armchair urbanists and armchair engineers on this forum truly believe that this bridge would be on the verge of collapse within 10-15 years. It’s honestly too ridiculous to even reply to. There are highly trafficked concrete bridges this city that are over 100 years old.

I am trying to think of one such bridge that hasn't been pretty much rebuilt from the inside out more recently than that.

There was a reason the LRT project ended up discarding some existing concrete BRT structures rather than re-use them.