Petawawa bridge construction

[TangoTwoBravo]

? There's a base and a base commander who is responsible to deconflict use of base facilities to ensure units & formations reliant on the base are able to achieve their missions.  If there are access issues with the base, the B Comd should work with integral and lodger units to minimize the stresses where possible.

While there's a roll down effect to 2 CMBG, comd 2 CMBG doesn't command the base.

I understand the base structure here - its my third posting to Pet. Have you been posted here? Have you worked in a formation?

I ask your experience at a CMBG (ie a large formation on a base with other elements of other formations) because you are throwing darts at folks and presuming to know their jobs and assessing how they are doing it. I was curious about your practical experience in these matters. You don't think that the Base is engaged?

In any case I was a bit snippy - I apologize.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Isn't there a Combat Engineer Regiment in Petawawa?  Couldn't they do a ferry operation, or bridging, or something? 



:nod:

I'm guessing they may not be able to if a private-sector alternative is available (that's what I've been told when government dep'ts have asked for military support to do things like clean up rubble or demolish things).

 

[dapaterson]

I understand the base structure here - its my third posting to Pet. Have you been posted here? Have you worked in a formation?

I ask your experience at a CMBG (ie a large formation on a base with other elements of other formations) because you are throwing darts at folks and presuming to know their jobs and assessing how they are doing it. I was curious about your practical experience in these matters. You don't think that the Base is engaged?

In any case I was a bit snippy - I apologize.

And I was also somewhat "internetty" - responding solely on what I read in an online post, not having any background info.  Thank you for reminding me to think, evaluate, ask questions, then engage...

 

[bridges]

Interesting...
"When the Trans-Canada Highway bridge over the Petawawa sunk 10 inches one night in May, 1972, its closure disrupted one of the country's main transportation arteries. It was the CPR that became a shuttle service to keep Atomic Energy and the base running."
First collapse


ME

That's quite a story, about the first collapse (not the one in 1972).  Thanks for the link. 

 

[poinf]

If "Back to the future 3" has taught me anything, it is only 3 more years until we have flying car. So this bridge will be useless anyways.

 

[bridges]

My first car had a 'vertical take-off' switch on the dash.  Those were sold beside the 'turbo-boost' switches, if memory serves. 

Fortunately I never had to use it - I'm not sure the chassis would have held together. 

 

[Bluebulldog]

Working for PW civvy side, maybe I can shed some light.

The rehab of the bridge not only was for re-surfacing, but to re-do the expansion joints, and the parapet walls, that had been suffering from a ton of de-lamination.

The weekend closures were to tie in the new ( replacement) water mains that run below the bridge, hence there was work going on, but probably unseen from the road deck.

The trouble with a job of this magnitude is that you often don't know how much re-hab work, or structural remediation is needed until you expose the deck, and related structural steel. Given the state the bridge was in before the job commenced, I'd venture a guess that the delamination was more than expected, and of course, you cannot proceed with remediation until an engineer has reviewed, and then developed a scope of work to follow.

Working at night, while definitely more convenient for the public, tends to bring project costs up, quite a bit. There is a lot of evidence that many accidents on road construction sites occur at night, both due to shadow, and poor visibility, fatigue on the part of the worker, and vehicular impacts. It"s not a practice many Municipalities want to tackle unless there really is no other options.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That was really informative.    Bluebulldog, thanks.  The things you learn in Radio Chatter

I should probably bike or run to work- I have plans on buying a bike next year for that purpose.  Mind you, biking is pretty dangerous.  Just this morning I watched a young girl on a bike almost get crushed between two cars when the driver trying to merge onto Petawawa blvd from Victoria wasn't paying attention and was trying to squeeze in close while she tried to pass by.  I've actually seen a number of near misses stemming from drivers in a rush to get to work.

I'd imagine working at night has some issues.  Workers tired? They can sleep during the day like other people on shift work IMO. Also we service members work while tired fatigued and sleepy, with things that go boom  

It could be more dangerous traffic wise but also less since there would be significantly less drivers trying to race past.

With 3 high volume directions of traffic merging into one it's just a really shitty spot to have construction.  Sure it's unavoidable but maybe if someone would have did some work on the bridge sooner it wouldn't have fell into such disrepair.

I'd be interested to see how long it took the bridge to get fixed in 1972 compared to how long it will take now.

 

[riggermade]

Unfortunately I don't see a solution to the traffic problem on and off base coming anytime soon.... when you figure the base, the town, the province and the frderal government all having a say it will be difficult to move forward... in addition those who have ever been here know how difficult it would be to select a location.... I'm glad I don't have to do that trip on a daily basis anymore

 

[vonGarvin]

Unfortunately I don't see a solution to the traffic problem on and off base coming anytime soon.... when you figure the base, the town, the province and the frderal government all having a say it will be difficult to move forward... in addition those who have ever been here know how difficult it would be to select a location.... I'm glad I don't have to do that trip on a daily basis anymore

The rail line is being torn up.  There is still that bridge there.  Build a road on that bed, and have it make an intersection where it hits Paquette Road, and then carry on to Montgomery.  If you work at 2 CER, you go straight past the traffic circle (ha!) at Paquette.  If you work over say at 1 RCR, you go right towards Menin.

 

[Bluebulldog]

  Sure it's unavoidable but maybe if someone would have did some work on the bridge sooner it wouldn't have fell into such disrepair.

Ah....the joys of municipal budgeting, and deferring maintenance. Pay now....or pay lots more later......

 

[The Bread Guy]

Ah....the joys of municipal budgeting, and deferring maintenance. Pay now....or pay lots more later......

People remember "zero tax increase" waaaaaaaaaaay more easily than "there should have been more spending in the past".

 

[Jarnhamar]

The rail line is being torn up.  There is still that bridge there.  Build a road on that bed, and have it make an intersection where it hits Paquette Road, and then carry on to Montgomery.  If you work at 2 CER, you go straight past the traffic circle (ha!) at Paquette.  If you work over say at 1 RCR, you go right towards Menin.

Holy shit that's a great idea- I wonder what's stopping it from being implemented?

 

[Bluebulldog]

Holy crap that's a great idea- I wonder what's stopping it from being implemented?

Probably because the rail bed and related corridor is either privately owned, or Federally owned. The rail bridge would never have been engineered for vehicular traffic ( which while being much lighter, still isnt rail).....the amount of cooperation between levels of government involved, Environmental Asessments, feasibility studies, and all the related BS that would go with undertaking a project like that.......

It would be quicker to simply have blown up the existing bridge and started fresh.....never mind the years of politicking prior to shovel one hitting the ground.

I'm a cog in a much similar slow, machine, plundering along........it's frusterating for both the public....and those of us trying to get the job done. :-\

 

[vonGarvin]

If not for vehicular traffic, why not bicycle and foot traffic?  The former CP/CN lines here in NB have been turned into walking trails. 

 

[GAP]

Here in Wpg it took years for right of way access to be sorted out over former rail line areas....it's a real dog's breakfast...

 

[Bluebulldog]

If not for vehicular traffic, why not bicycle and foot traffic?  The former CP/CN lines here in NB have been turned into walking trails.

Same story here in ON. Actually much of the Trans Canada trail is built on old rail lines.

Definitely an option. In my corner of the world we own a large segment of rail corridor, and it's being converted for just that purpose. Maybe a conversation the Base, and public need to have with the municipality. Given the study that was done a few years ago that coincided with the repair program on the bridge, and it highlighting how traffic has increased over the years - if it was pitched with the argument that it would reduce traffic pressures on existing roadways, you'd be surprised how some things can happen.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Judging by the picture posted by Bluebulldog, that bridge has a lot of issues. Not sure if the bridge is owned by the feds or the municipality, if owned by the base, then PWGS does the contracting and likely they underestimated the contract and effects. Frankly throwing up a temp bridge beside it would have resolved the traffic issues and not an uncommon practice here. As one my contacts in Highways says, there is always money to do a half-assed job and then fix the screwups, but never money to do it right the first time. Judging by GE the bridge is 58m long and the waterway is navigable, so permits would have to been sought for any underside work. 60m is not hard to span with a temp bridge with a 75-100 ton rating and it appears to be enough clear land on either bank to do so. Poor planning and not enough money are likely the culprits.

 

[vonGarvin]

Poor planning and not enough money are likely the culprits.

:nod:


EDIT TO ADD: If for any reason that rail bridge is used for any sort of traffic, and if there is a "good idea prize" given for it, I better be part of that, or I'm going to sabotage that bridge ;D

 

[Bluebulldog]

Judging by the picture posted by Bluebulldog, that bridge has a lot of issues. Not sure if the bridge is owned by the feds or the municipality, if owned by the base, then PWGS does the contracting and likely they underestimated the contract and effects. Frankly throwing up a temp bridge beside it would have resolved the traffic issues and not an uncommon practice here. As one my contacts in Highways says, there is always money to do a half-assed job and then fix the screwups, but never money to do it right the first time. Judging by GE the bridge is 58m long and the waterway is navigable, so permits would have to been sought for any underside work. 60m is not hard to span with a temp bridge with a 75-100 ton rating and it appears to be enough clear land on either bank to do so. Poor planning and not enough money are likely the culprits.

It's owned by the County of Renfrew. And of course, most capital works have a direct impact on the tax levy. No politician wants to be the one to bump municipal tax rates, particularly during a poor economy.

The fact that it was left so long, has greatly contributed to it's current state of disrepair. Roads and bridges are not "sexy" in the Municipal world, so get very little attention until often it's too late. Look at Montreal's bridges as a perfect example.