Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph
(02-06-2018, 06:29 PM)jamincan Wrote: The MTO has done overnight bridge replacements elsewhere in the province. They construct the replacement bridge off-site, jack up the old bridge and cart it off, and then cart in the new one. It's actually a pretty cool process.




The width spanned by that bridge never changed (only the width of the bridge itself), so the original abutments could be re-used.  We're not in the same situation with Victoria, it will be a longer span so a one-day swap isn't feasible -- the old abutments have to come down with new ones built on new pilings.
...K
Reply
I fully trust that the engineering team's solution for the work at Victoria is the correct one.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
Correct one given the constraints. If we gave them more money and reduce the time available they could come up with something within those constraints too Smile
Reply
The correct engineering choice is always the one that satisfies the most number of constraints.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
I'm not arguing that they should be doing rapid bridge replacement for Victoria - that was more an interesting an aside demonstrating just what's possible; I do wonder if they shouldn't have more heavily weighed the cost of closing off those ramps for so long, though.
Reply
(02-07-2018, 08:42 PM)jamincan Wrote: I'm not arguing that they should be doing rapid bridge replacement for Victoria - that was more an interesting an aside demonstrating just what's possible; I do wonder if they shouldn't have more heavily weighed the cost of closing off those ramps for so long, though.

I suspect those ramps will be in a new location/configuration when they reopen under the new bridge.
...K
Reply
(02-08-2018, 10:31 AM)KevinT Wrote: I suspect those ramps will be in a new location/configuration when they reopen under the new bridge.

I hope I'm wrong but my understanding is the current/closed ramps on Bruce and Edna aren't part of the overall final plans, meaning they'll eventually be closed for good anyway. 

Which is why I was really hoping the new NB 85 ramp, extending from Bruce st. to Wellington, would already be in place to provide an alternate route before the Victoria street bridge closure.  That plus the fact the existing NB 85 Bruce street ramp will have been closed for the majority (say 75%? ) of 24 month period come November. 

Good news is the light timing has been changed on Frederick to move the extra volume of traffic.  Bad news if you're a tractor-trailer trying to make a turn at one of the intersections onto Frederick.  Two lanes to turn from and two lanes to turn into is just not happening (to be honest, I think the half dozen truck drivers I saw attempting this today will re-think their detour routes).
Reply
(02-08-2018, 07:40 PM)embe Wrote:
(02-08-2018, 10:31 AM)KevinT Wrote: I suspect those ramps will be in a new location/configuration when they reopen under the new bridge.

I hope I'm wrong but my understanding is the current/closed ramps on Bruce and Edna aren't part of the overall final plans, meaning they'll eventually be closed for good anyway. 

Which is why I was really hoping the new NB 85 ramp, extending from Bruce st. to Wellington, would already be in place to provide an alternate route before the Victoria street bridge closure.  That plus the fact the existing NB 85 Bruce street ramp will have been closed for the majority (say 75%? ) of 24 month period come November. 

Good news is the light timing has been changed on Frederick to move the extra volume of traffic.  Bad news if you're a tractor-trailer trying to make a turn at one of the intersections onto Frederick.  Two lanes to turn from and two lanes to turn into is just not happening (to be honest, I think the half dozen truck drivers I saw attempting this today will re-think their detour routes).

Isn’t Edna being similarly extended? Hypothetically, one could bypass the Victoria St. bridge by taking Edna to Wellington, across to Bruce, and back down to Victoria. Offhand, it seems like building those ramps before closing the bridge would have made sense, but on a project of this complexity I’m not going to pretend I understand the construction staging plan well enough to critique it.
Reply
No, Edna is not being extended. Weston's remains in the way.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
The Edna ramp will intersect with Wellington, though.
Reply
(02-08-2018, 07:40 PM)embe Wrote:
(02-08-2018, 10:31 AM)KevinT Wrote: I suspect those ramps will be in a new location/configuration when they reopen under the new bridge.

I hope I'm wrong but my understanding is the current/closed ramps on Bruce and Edna aren't part of the overall final plans, meaning they'll eventually be closed for good anyway. 

Which is why I was really hoping the new NB 85 ramp, extending from Bruce st. to Wellington, would already be in place to provide an alternate route before the Victoria street bridge closure.  That plus the fact the existing NB 85 Bruce street ramp will have been closed for the majority (say 75%? ) of 24 month period come November. 

Good news is the light timing has been changed on Frederick to move the extra volume of traffic.  Bad news if you're a tractor-trailer trying to make a turn at one of the intersections onto Frederick.  Two lanes to turn from and two lanes to turn into is just not happening (to be honest, I think the half dozen truck drivers I saw attempting this today will re-think their detour routes).

  The existing on/off ramps at Edna are to be configured into a road that will pass under the new extended Victoria St. bridge and the existing railway and continue to a new four-way intersection at Wellington St. where the existing southbound 85 off-ramp meets Wellington St.

  The Bruce St. extension could not be built yet as the entire existing Victoria St. / Bruce St. intersection is going to be raised aprox 1/2  metre.  The reason for this as I understand it, is that the new 130 metre long Victoria St. bridge (14 lanes of traffic below ) has only four spans and a deeper cross-section and the bridge deck will sit slightly higher than the existing bridge.

  The new (temporary) Bruce St. on-ramp is to be slightly reconfigured as the current on-ramp lies exactly where a set of columns for the new bridge are to be located.  This new ramp will  be located slightly to the east of where it enters the expressway now.  The new two-lane ramp from the northbound expressway to the new hwy 7 eastbound will be located where this temporary ramp will be located.  The fact that they're constructing this temporary on-ramp suggests to me that the Bruce St. extension won't be built anytime soon, unfortunately

  Speaking of detours, the existing Frederick St. bridge is going to be removed and a new slightly longer one re-built sometime after the completion of the new Victoria St. bridge.
Reply
Can we just get a map posted again? Text descriptions of this interchange are impossible to comprehend
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(02-09-2018, 07:11 AM)Canard Wrote: Can we just get a map posted again? Text descriptions of this interchange are impossible to comprehend

http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/s...75#pid8675

Indeed, it shows Edna not being extended. Now that I think of it, of course it’s not being extended.

However, it appears that the intersection where the ramps join Edna will now connect to a road that will run under Victoria St. and up to Wellington. Problem with my idea: the new road runs under Victoria St. and therefore cannot be constructed until the new longer Victoria St. bridge is in place. It’s not obvious why the Bruce St. extension can’t be built (raising the intersection could be done over a relatively brief closure) but my short detour idea does not work.

I’ll be interested to see how they punch the new roads under the railway. Presumably there will not be a lengthy closure of the railway.
Reply
   
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
With the Bruce St. extension going under the tracks, I wonder if they might not have been able to extend River under the tracks too. And then have it continue under the new Hwy 7 and become Riverbend. It would make the interchange a little simpler and significantly improve movement between Wellington/Shirley and south of the tracks. Unfortunately, I suspect the highway dropping down to interface with the Pkwy prevents running River under the highway itself (hence the underpass being further west).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides a news reporting service, opportunities for event promotion and other user-driven content complemented by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links