Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637 LastLast
Results 3,401 to 3,500 of 3696

Thread: Walterdale Bridge Replacement | U/C

  1. #3401
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Maybe not dynamite, but non-explosive demolition using an expanding grout after the piers have been cut or chomped to water level: http://www.archerusa.com/nonexplosiv...on_Harcon.html
    thanks for the link - although i would hope they plan to remove them to riverbed level or below, not just to water level.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #3402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Maybe not dynamite, but non-explosive demolition using an expanding grout after the piers have been cut or chomped to water level: http://www.archerusa.com/nonexplosiv...on_Harcon.html
    thanks for the link - although i would hope they plan to remove them to riverbed level or below, not just to water level.
    the bold part is important
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  3. #3403
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Maybe not dynamite, but non-explosive demolition using an expanding grout after the piers have been cut or chomped to water level: http://www.archerusa.com/nonexplosiv...on_Harcon.html
    thanks for the link - although i would hope they plan to remove them to riverbed level or below, not just to water level.
    the bold part is important
    you are correct - and the bolding is almost as important as reading comprehension before posting a reply should be.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #3404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    ^Correct


    Well, it looks like all the stone and concrete could be used right there (just moved to the bank) to protect the new bridge and to even create a solid foundation for a paved surface at the river’s edges for some sort of creative enhancements.

  5. #3405

    Default

    Place a barge with an excavator aboard and use a concrete breaker to remove the pier.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #3406

    Default

    Or leave them in place and turn them into climbing walls. String a rope bridge to them (even more cool!) and create a safety pool below... move rock downstream for a hut, coffeee hop to service the rock climbers...


    Or cover them in plants and bird nesting shelves, etc and they could be neat green “living” pillars.

    The flat tops might even serve as useful for something or other.

    Or mount an array of solar panels on them...



    Another bridge, another set of piers, but matches my thoughts:

    Piers down, someday | Cornwall Standard Freeholder

    “While the majority of councillors shared Rivette’s sentiment, others such as Elaine MacDonald argued the city should take the opportunity to explore options for repurposing the pillars.

    “I think they’re a resource, and I don’t think we should remove them with without considering the possibilities of making into a tourist attraction and as a piece of our history,” said MacDonald.”


    http://www.standard-freeholder.com/2...-down-some-day


    As an aside, this is about the old bridge piers in Fort Saskatchewan.

    Hopefully this is still in the works and could even capture some savings or “synergies” from the planned new highway bridge development:


    Athabasca Landing Trail - Alberta Trail Net - Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    “An engineering study was conducted in Fall 2010 to identify whether the existing piers can be used for a pedestrian bridge. The study showed the piers are stable and can be reused; however, structural strengthening and repairs will be required before any potential reuse. In January, 2011, the same engineering firm developed three conceptual design alternatives with cost estimates for a bridge built on the CNR piers and for a new bridge with its own independent supports. Federal government funding for the pier evaluation and conceptual bridge engineering study was provided through a grant provided by Trans Canada Trail with project direction and the support from the City of Fort Saskatchewan and Alberta TrailNet Society. A meeting to discuss the engineering reports was held on February 28, 2011 and three designs were considered: a Buffalo Truss Bridge, a suspension bridge, or a single arch bridge spanning the entire river. Efforts to raise funds are currently underway.

    Based on the importance and site exposure of as a landmark, new tourism and recreation destination, and critic al piece of trail infrastructure in the capital region, this project is an ideal candidate for corporate, government and other donor investments.“

    http://www.athabascalandingtrail.com...askbridge.html

    Last edited by KC; 07-11-2017 at 08:36 AM.

  7. #3407
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Screw that. We live in Alberta. Blow them up with dynamite.

  8. #3408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Screw that. We live in Alberta. Blow them up with dynamite.
    And sell tickets for the event! Flak jackets and helmuts included. Might raise enough money to pay for the demolition too!

  9. #3409
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,694

    Default

    The center section is now off the posts. Walterdale bridge by lunch should be completely off the water.
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  10. #3410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booster View Post
    The center section is now off the posts. Walterdale bridge by lunch should be completely off the water.
    Its past lunch and its not moved from where they did the first pick as you forgot they had to rerig to do the next pick later on most likely tonight like the last span.

  11. #3411

    Default

    Hmmm 4:00 and the harness lines aren't even tightened. Not much daylight left. I bet they wait for tomorrow. The cutters have put in some long overnigh hours though, but a lift like this is 10X trickier under lights.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  12. #3412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Hmmm 4:00 and the harness lines aren't even tightened. Not much daylight left. I bet they wait for tomorrow. The cutters have put in some long overnigh hours though, but a lift like this is 10X trickier under lights.
    makes sense as well

    Edit: Looks like they moved a bit more now
    Last edited by Dark Magnus; 07-11-2017 at 05:10 PM.

  13. #3413

    Default

    Around 17:30 I watched as they unhooked the north crane. The span was centred on the south pier. There was no activity for a while after that but now it is straddling the south bank and the temporary support structure. I'm guessing it will be a pile of scrap by tomorrow morning. Side note: the workers unhooking the north crane were out right above the middle of the river, with the ice pans rushing through the gap below. Not enough money in the world for me.

  14. #3414

    Default

    If they use explosives it will look something like this: https://youtu.be/Onm5zOA_HwY

  15. #3415

    Default

    Sonofagun, it's moved! Those guys don't mess around...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  16. #3416
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonk View Post
    If they use explosives it will look something like this: https://youtu.be/Onm5zOA_HwY

  17. #3417

    Default

    The excavator feasting has begun!

  18. #3418
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,750

    Default

    That is quite a pile of old bridge on the South bank. Wish I could have stopped to snap a pic.

  19. #3419

    Default

    I asked the Walterdale Bridge people how the remaining piers will be removed and this was their answer:

    The concrete piers will be removed using a hydraulic hammer on the end of excavators, similar to using big jackhammers. No explosives will be used in the bridge demolition.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  20. #3420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    I asked the Walterdale Bridge people how the remaining piers will be removed and this was their answer:

    The concrete piers will be removed using a hydraulic hammer on the end of excavators, similar to using big jackhammers. No explosives will be used in the bridge demolition.
    It sounds like they will hammer them down until they meet the bottom of the river. Sort of like an oversized but unnecessary nail.

  21. #3421

    Default

    Were the berms built to act as cofferdams? If they were, one could excavate a ramp all the way down to the riverbed if need be.

  22. #3422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    I asked the Walterdale Bridge people how the remaining piers will be removed and this was their answer:

    The concrete piers will be removed using a hydraulic hammer on the end of excavators, similar to using big jackhammers. No explosives will be used in the bridge demolition.
    It sounds like they will hammer them down until they meet the bottom of the river. Sort of like an oversized but unnecessary nail.
    No, they'll be busted up like concrete (and asphalt) is generally. Like a jackhamer on a backhoe, but bigger.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  23. #3423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonk View Post
    Were the berms built to act as cofferdams? If they were, one could excavate a ramp all the way down to the riverbed if need be.
    They're watered and rolled road crush (broken rock and sand) so a ramp could be possible. Since they answered so quickly I'll ask.

    If they get to it like they got to the metal works we won't have to wait long to see.
    Last edited by Spudly; 09-11-2017 at 07:27 PM.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  24. #3424

    Default

    I asked last night about the piers and here's what I got this morning:

    ...the piers will only be removed to 1 m below the bottom of the river bed. All concrete footings below this level will remain permanently in place.
    I could ask further about the how of it but it seems to me that bashing the piers from the top and pulling out the rubble would be the simplest method of removing the piers once they've been removed to the level of the jetties.

    Once the crawler cranes are disassembled (one of them half-done already) we should see the bashing begin.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  25. #3425

    Default

    Nice info, Spudly. If the river bed ever drops to expose enough of the remaining footings to be a navigation hazard, well we already have bigger problems.

    Another thought: maybe they don't have to worry about water. As long as it stays cold, the top X cm of the berms exposed to the air will be frozen. The water is already pretty close to 0, any dampness lower in the berm will freeze once exposed as they chip away at the piers.

  26. #3426

    Default

    Regarding the piers.

    I think they had a shiny new bridge and so wanted clear lines of sight so everyone could admire it from afar. So the old bridge and the piers had to go.

    I think that’s too bad. The piers alone could have served as bases for interesting sculptures or art to further enhance the area.



    Old bridge concept
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...t-to-Waterdale

  27. #3427

    Default

    Getting worried about the ice jams that have been hapening for the last few days the river has risen to almost the top of the berms is this because of the lrt berms downriver?

  28. #3428

    Default

    The LRT berms are way down past two bends in the river, too far away to be of significance.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  29. #3429

    Default

    Ice jams can become a hazard both upstream and when they break, downstream.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #3430

    Default

    Meteorites are a hazard too!
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  31. #3431

    Default

    Don't be silly.

    Ice jams can quickly cause significant damage and flooding.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 12-11-2017 at 09:38 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  32. #3432

    Default

    Meteorites are just as dangerous and just as relevant to this situation.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  33. #3433

    Default

    A red herring and not related to the issue at hand. Sharks are dangerous too.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #3434

    Default

    Nothing a little dynamite can't solve.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  35. #3435

    Default

    Sharks with lasers are truly to be feared!

    There was an interesting surge on the river yesterday I viewed on the North live cam. In the morning the ice was still, unusual because I've gotten used to the river always moving. I thought the cam was misbehaving because sometimes it just freezes, but I could see vehicles passing over the bridge. Then around noon I noticed that the upstream ice was moving but the downstream ice wasn't. Ice coming from upstream was surging over the ice downstream. Not piling up, just riding over top, very slowly. Then about an hour later all the ice was moving again.

    Today it's back to still and fractured and dead-looking.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  36. #3436

    Default

    The old north pier is getting jackhammered today.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  37. #3437

    Default

    They should use the cement to make a weir.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  38. #3438

    Default

    There really wouldn't be enough rubble to make much but gravel for a drainage base layer - there's a rebar cage to deal with in each pier. There are probably environmental regs about using clean rock of certain dimensions for anything that has to be in the water.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  39. #3439

    Default

    I came across a contract bidding term that I did not know but I was aware in practice that is often used when making bids.

    Now I know the official name and see that it may be applied to this signature bridge.


    Suicide bidding
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bidding

    Suicide bidding is a response to a tendering exercise in which a potential supplier, anxious to win business, submits a proposal to carry out the work for less than it will cost.


    - The motive for such bidding is to keep the company's skilled labour employed, even if the project only breaks even or makes a loss.


    - This can result in poor quality work, poor service and debates over loopholes in contract wording in attempts to charge clients extra, or even insolvency on the part of the contractor.


    - The practice has particularly been noted in construction bidding. A 2010 survey by the Chartered Institute of Building found that 82% of respondents believe that “suicide bidding” exists within the industry.


    - The Civil Engineering Contractors Association acknowledged that the practice had become "rife" in the desperate competition for work during the late-2000s recession, but blamed the public sector procurement process for focussing on the lowest price rather than best value
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  40. #3440
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,706

    Default

    Never heard that specific term. Most people in the industry say something along the lines of "on yeah, so and so has been buying a ton of work lately." One of the big problems with that kind of practice, is that many companies are just flat out bad at estimating, so they don't even really know what their true cost is or will be. So when they decide to bid a project at or near their cost to keep the lights on or to expand market share, they end up losing a ton of money on the project. And if they're aggressive enough and bidding everything in sight, one company can almost by themselves destroy an entire market segment. If they have deep enough pockets (and their management dumb enough), they can do so for years.

    There was one specific mechanical contractor bidding multi-unit and mixed-use projects in 2013-15 in Edmonton and Northern Alberta that screwed up the entire industry. And all they managed to do was put themselves out of business and take something like 5-10 million dollars of private equity money and flush it down the toilet, leaving a string of horrible, problematic installations in their wake. Meanwhile, the other mechanicals in that market space struggled to match their incredibly low prices, sub-trades and suppliers were forced to wait for payment, and so on. It was a total mess. Even before they went out of business, most knowledgeable GC's/CM's had basically banned them from bidding on any future work.

    Concreate did much the same thing for an extended period in the bridge building/rehab market in Edmonton: http://edmontonsun.com/2012/05/26/qu...a-a6f0dbd5c0ed
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 14-11-2017 at 11:32 AM.

  41. #3441
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    There is definitely zero margin bidding happening right now in the industrial sector.
    It is going to take a while for the weak ones to burn through their cash reserves and either be bought out or close their doors.

    I have no reason to believe that Acciona or Pacer took this project at zero margin or a loss. The time of project tendering was not post oil collapse and there are only a handful of contractors that would quality to build a project like this. That term really isn't relevant to this project.

    However, it is another failed attempt at offshore procurement that rippled and has likely caused a major loss to the contractor JV.

  42. #3442
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,988

    Default

    Any idea when the lighting feature is coming?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  43. #3443
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Any idea when the lighting feature is coming?
    Call these guys...
    http://www.jatec.ca/featured-projects/new-to-jatec/

  44. #3444
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,684

    Default

    ^ Cool, been wondering about that. Be nice to show if off to YVR-snobs at Xmas.
    ... gobsmacked

  45. #3445
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,287

    Default

    Here's my prediction: they will have a grand opening next year once all the construction work is completed (they still have the east pedestrian walkway and river bank restoration left to do), and they will reveal the bridge lights at that time.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  46. #3446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Not that I've seen them testing. But there are a couple of big crates with NOMA written on them.
    So I did a little digging and found that the "Kinetic Lighting System" in the video above was in the project tender. See link below:

    http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER...an11nIvQ%3D%3D

    So bringing this back up as the bridge still has no lighting. I confirmed in this previous post that the really neat Kinetic LED lighting system was in the project tender. Was it scrapped?

  47. #3447
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,055

    Default

    Maybe they traded the led lighting in for a load of plates they were short of

  48. #3448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Maybe they traded the led lighting in for a load of plates they were short of
    Or the LED lighting came from a supplier in Korea but the two electrical systems don't match so they have to wait another season to get an alternative LED system.

  49. #3449

    Default

    Walked by this evening and there was water in the hole as they were jackhammering away. That answers the cofferdam question.

  50. #3450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    I was wondering that when I saw the static cam around 6. All the people-lifters were moved to the south yard and the deck looked very bare.
    Hmm...so they are extremely close. Now I'll ask the question that I've been asking forever. Is the LED lighting that was in plan for this bridge still there or was it cut? Has anyone seen the bridge lit?
    Driving by yesterday I did see what look to be embedded light fixtures in the arch, one per segment. They could be housing LED lights?
    Folks, this is what I was referring to. Just wondering if this got built into the project or not?



    Just wanted to remind everyone of what these lights are/were supposed to look like...

  51. #3451

    Default

    ^ what we paid for...


    What we get...

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  52. #3452

    Default Waterdale at Night


  53. #3453

    Default

    Nice plates...


    ....NOT!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  54. #3454
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    edmonton, alberta
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Nice plates...


    ....NOT!

    Nice looking bridge! Get over it

  55. #3455

    Default

    Ugly plates.

    You have been had...

    There is always photoshop
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #3456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Ugly plates.

    You have been had...

    There is always photoshop
    Congrats. You just made my ignore list.

  57. #3457

    Default

    Cannot shut out reality...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #3458
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    On top of which....It's an arch...A simple arch. LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  59. #3459

    Default

    Grabbed this from the webcam, they were testing the lights late Tuesday afternoon:


  60. #3460
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,988

    Default

    ... oh... I am liking what I am seeing.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  61. #3461
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,504
    Go ahead, speed pass me... I'll meet you at the next red light.

  62. #3462

    Default

    Spoiler Alert

    Funny that they could get lights 'Way up there!" but they said it was impossible to get a welder up there.

    You have been lied to...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #3463
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Spoiler Alert

    Funny that they could get lights 'Way up there!" but they said it was impossible to get a welder up there.

    You have been lied to...
    Jesus Christ, get over it already. You'd think it ****** your mother with your hate for it.

  64. #3464

    Default

    Must of touched a nerve, did I? I guess that those ugly plates are a real sore point for you. Sorry your butt hurts so much.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #3465

    Default

    EPRT famously makes mountains of out of molehills, and won't let it go, ever. Someone mention trolleys and see what happens.

  66. #3466

    Default

    Old people love to hear themselves criticize things.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  67. #3467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    EPRT famously makes mountains of out of molehills, and won't let it go, ever. Someone mention trolleys and see what happens.
    TROLLeys



    Ok, everyone wait for it... wait...

  68. #3468
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Old people love to hear themselves criticize things.
    Exactly! So it's safe to say everyone on here except Moi - is old....due to the amount of criticizing. Oh wait, am I criticizing right now?lol

  69. #3469

    Default

    your age automatically doubles if you are criticizing someone else's criticism

  70. #3470

    Default

    Spudly
    Old people love to hear themselves criticize things.
    ...and of course young people don't criticize. They believe everything their parents and the government tells them.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #3471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Spoiler Alert

    Funny that they could get lights 'Way up there!" but they said it was impossible to get a welder up there.

    You have been lied to...
    Jesus Christ, get over it already. You'd think it ****** your mother with your hate for it.
    Some of us are, as taxpayers, continually disappointed that the city tenders a Ferrari and gets a Dodge for the same price. It's a fine bridge in its own right, however it's not what we tendered and it's not what we paid for. Those are valid complaints.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  72. #3472

    Default

    Well said.

    Some will hate you for telling the truth.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #3473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well said.

    Some will hate you for telling the truth.
    To absolutely no one who can do anything about it. But you knew that...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  74. #3474
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Spoiler Alert

    Funny that they could get lights 'Way up there!" but they said it was impossible to get a welder up there.

    You have been lied to...
    Jesus Christ, get over it already. You'd think it ****** your mother with your hate for it.
    Some of us are, as taxpayers, continually disappointed that the city tenders a Ferrari and gets a Dodge for the same price. It's a fine bridge in its own right, however it's not what we tendered and it's not what we paid for. Those are valid complaints.
    Except it is exactly what we paid for. If we got the other version it would have cost more money to do that.
    Don't believe or listen to EPRT and his rants. He just keeps confusing technical and commercial issues. Yea, technically it could have been welded, no it could have not been done for the same commercial value.
    Last edited by DanC; 14-12-2017 at 10:02 PM.

  75. #3475
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well said.

    Some will hate you for telling the truth.
    Except you aren't speaking any truth just being the loud obnoxious guy who won't let it go.

  76. #3476

    Default

    Loud???
    How can text be loud?

    Meanwhile, DanC, show me where in the original design or tendering documents did it show the big ugly plates. Why could they weld some joints and not others? The ones at the very top were preassembled on the ground, like the lower ones, and then lifted and installed as a unit. No reason why the top joints were not welded.


    And yes I know how to weld and even taught welding.

    Keep playing the apologist for the low bidder.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 15-12-2017 at 06:57 AM. Reason: Picture added
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #3477
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Loud???
    How can text be loud?

    Meanwhile, DanC, show me where in the original design or tendering documents did it show the big ugly plates. Why could they weld some joints and not others? The ones at the very top were preassembled on the ground, like the lower ones, and then lifted and installed as a unit. No reason why the top joints were not welded. And yes I know how to weld and even taught welding.

    Keep playing the apologist for the low bidder.
    You already answered it. Cost.
    Im not apologizing for anyone, I'm living in the reality of having to meet a budget.

  78. #3478
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Must of touched a nerve, did I? I guess that those ugly plates are a real sore point for you. Sorry your butt hurts so much.

    Seems they are a sore point for you.

  79. #3479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Loud???
    How can text be loud?

    Meanwhile, DanC, show me where in the original design or tendering documents did it show the big ugly plates. Why could they weld some joints and not others? The ones at the very top were preassembled on the ground, like the lower ones, and then lifted and installed as a unit. No reason why the top joints were not welded. And yes I know how to weld and even taught welding.

    Keep playing the apologist for the low bidder.
    You already answered it. Cost.
    Im not apologizing for anyone, I'm living in the reality of having to meet a budget.
    Did i mention cost? No, you did not answer it.

    I will remind you that this design was to replace a 100 year old riveted plate truss design.

    As Chmilz clearly delineated, if you pay for a Ferrari and get a Dodge, would you feel cheated? The bridge was tendered and the company bid to build the bridge to specifications at a fixed cost and delivery. If there were problems with the steel coming from Korea, the delays and extra costs are on the company's dime and not the taxpayer because it was a fixed price contract. If the bridge was to be built to contractual specifications with welded joints then the contractor is supposed to do quality work and weld all the joints. If the contractor screwed up and botched the job, they must fix it at their cost. If they cut corners and just leave the plates on and skip welding the joints contrary to specifications, then they don't get paid the fixed cost until the joints are welded.

    Now the real question that no one has answered is; what was the design and contractual specification? If it was welded joints, why did the contractor allowed to cut corners? If the original design specification said plates then why were we shown the COE proposals that illustrated a clean, plate free arch? If there was no details in the design and engineering specifications, this would be a failure by the COE to prepare a proper bid package.

    I understand that there are some legal actions that were taken by other bidders that the process was unfair. Do these relate to these issues, possibly related to the specifications may have been changed after the project was awarded that allowed the lowest bidder to cut corners and give us a patch job.

    Here is the FINAL DESIGN of the bridge on the COE website. I see no connecting plates in the illustrations or the engineering drawings. Clean seamless design with only a thin sketched line showing where the sections are connected, No plates shown.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...n_02072013.pdf

    Note: February 2013: tender of the new bridge and corresponding roadway connections. Anticipated contract award date – April 2013
    I will say that allowing only two months for companies to review the complex specifications of the entire project, get supplier and subcontractor estimates, prepare the bid and submit it, then the COE do a detailed comparison, qualify bidders and make a selection, is extremely short period of time on a $150+M project. Is this rushed bid process the reason why this project became such a problem?

    I honestly do not know the answer and would appreciate someone who could answer these basic questions on the original design specifications.

    Is that not a reasonable question?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 15-12-2017 at 07:11 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #3480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    You already answered it. Cost.
    Im not apologizing for anyone, I'm living in the reality of having to meet a budget.
    No, you're pretty much the definition of a CoE apologist on this one Dan.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  81. #3481

    Default

    The cost was fixed. From reports, it was the construction contractor's budget that the company was having issues with. Their problem, not ours and not a reason why we should accept a substandard job.

    Next time DanC gets his home shingles replaced, I wonder how happy he would be if the contractor nailed down most of the shingles but at the peak of the roof, the contractor just nailed down a tarp and then said he was too difficult to get to the top to finish the job? Would you pay him the full price or tell him suck it up and finish the job properly as quoted?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #3482

    Default

    DanC is from the SDM school of debate? Colour me shocked!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  83. #3483

    Default

    Yup. Was even on the same thread.

  84. #3484
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Loud???
    How can text be loud?

    Meanwhile, DanC, show me where in the original design or tendering documents did it show the big ugly plates. Why could they weld some joints and not others? The ones at the very top were preassembled on the ground, like the lower ones, and then lifted and installed as a unit. No reason why the top joints were not welded. And yes I know how to weld and even taught welding.

    Keep playing the apologist for the low bidder.
    You already answered it. Cost.
    Im not apologizing for anyone, I'm living in the reality of having to meet a budget.
    Did i mention cost? No, you did not answer it.

    I will remind you that this design was to replace a 100 year old riveted plate truss design.

    As Chmilz clearly delineated, if you pay for a Ferrari and get a Dodge, would you feel cheated? The bridge was tendered and the company bid to build the bridge to specifications at a fixed cost and delivery. If there were problems with the steel coming from Korea, the delays and extra costs are on the company's dime and not the taxpayer because it was a fixed price contract. If the bridge was to be built to contractual specifications with welded joints then the contractor is supposed to do quality work and weld all the joints. If the contractor screwed up and botched the job, they must fix it at their cost. If they cut corners and just leave the plates on and skip welding the joints contrary to specifications, then they don't get paid the fixed cost until the joints are welded.

    Now the real question that no one has answered is; what was the design and contractual specification? If it was welded joints, why did the contractor allowed to cut corners? If the original design specification said plates then why were we shown the COE proposals that illustrated a clean, plate free arch? If there was no details in the design and engineering specifications, this would be a failure by the COE to prepare a proper bid package.

    I understand that there are some legal actions that were taken by other bidders that the process was unfair. Do these relate to these issues, possibly related to the specifications may have been changed after the project was awarded that allowed the lowest bidder to cut corners and give us a patch job.

    Here is the FINAL DESIGN of the bridge on the COE website. I see no connecting plates in the illustrations or the engineering drawings. Clean seamless design with only a thin sketched line showing where the sections are connected, No plates shown.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...n_02072013.pdf

    Note: February 2013: tender of the new bridge and corresponding roadway connections. Anticipated contract award date – April 2013
    I will say that allowing only two months for companies to review the complex specifications of the entire project, get supplier and subcontractor estimates, prepare the bid and submit it, then the COE do a detailed comparison, qualify bidders and make a selection, is extremely short period of time on a $150+M project. Is this rushed bid process the reason why this project became such a problem?

    I honestly do not know the answer and would appreciate someone who could answer these basic questions on the original design specifications.

    Is that not a reasonable question?
    I highlighted the part about cost in bold in your post.
    Here is my answer, the moved away from the original design specifications, likely (and this is conjecture), because the bids that included welding did not meet the project budget.
    A contractor offered an alternative that did meet budget, but meant sacrificing welded connections for bolted ones.
    The city chose budget over a technical deviation.

    Is it as nice? No.
    Is it as technically sound? Yes in a structural sense, though I see there are arguments that are may be valid around a high probability to corrosion.
    Did the City do it in a fair way that allowed all proponents to re-bid on that deviation? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it, but that hearsay.

    Is it done and over with? Yea and it's a pretty good bridge.

  85. #3485
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The cost was fixed. From reports, it was the construction contractor's budget that the company was having issues with. Their problem, not ours and not a reason why we should accept a substandard job.

    Next time DanC gets his home shingles replaced, I wonder how happy he would be if the contractor nailed down most of the shingles but at the peak of the roof, the contractor just nailed down a tarp and then said he was too difficult to get to the top to finish the job? Would you pay him the full price or tell him suck it up and finish the job properly as quoted?
    I really don't think that is a good analogy.
    Here is my alternate version:
    I asked for slate shingles because I thought it would cost 10k.
    I got quotes back from the contractors saying slate would be 15k.
    One contractor tells me I can have slate colored asphalt shingles for 10k. They still keep the rain out and have a 50 year guarantee.
    I say, okay I don't have the budget for real slate and I take the asphalt option. It's not as nice, but they do the job and look pretty good.

  86. #3486

    Default

    So we agree on several issues so I don't know why you flew off the handle and told other posters not to listen to me.

    Is it as nice? No. Agreed, especially for a signature project
    Is it as technically sound? Yes in a structural sense, though I see there are arguments that are may be valid around a high probability to corrosion. Agreed
    Did the City do it in a fair way that allowed all proponents to re-bid on that deviation? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it, but that hearsay. Agreed except that there were news reports of upset bidders


    Is it done and over with? Yea and it's a pretty good bridge. Not agreed. You stated that it is not nice so you are contradicting yourself. In my view, it is unfinished and should be doine to specicifications on the contractors dime or millions of dollars in penalties. Whether the other parts of the project were done to spec's, we have no knowledge.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  87. #3487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The cost was fixed. From reports, it was the construction contractor's budget that the company was having issues with. Their problem, not ours and not a reason why we should accept a substandard job.

    Next time DanC gets his home shingles replaced, I wonder how happy he would be if the contractor nailed down most of the shingles but at the peak of the roof, the contractor just nailed down a tarp and then said he was too difficult to get to the top to finish the job? Would you pay him the full price or tell him suck it up and finish the job properly as quoted?
    I really don't think that is a good analogy.
    Here is my alternate version:
    I asked for slate shingles because I thought it would cost 10k.
    I got quotes back from the contractors saying slate would be 15k.
    One contractor tells me I can have slate colored asphalt shingles for 10k. They still keep the rain out and have a 50 year guarantee.
    I say, okay I don't have the budget for real slate and I take the asphalt option. It's not as nice, but they do the job and look pretty good.

    Here is the reality

    You asked for slate shingles because I thought it would cost 10k.
    You got quotes back from the contractors saying slate would be 10k and another for 11K.
    You take the bid of 10K and work begins

    The contractor tells me that they can't do the job for that cost I can have slate colored asphalt shingles for 10k. They still keep the rain out and have a 50 year guarantee.
    You say, okay I will change to a lesser quality job and change the original bid project. It's not as nice, but they do the job and look pretty good.

    You are not paying for the job anyway, the taxpayer is paying for substandard work.

    The other bidder may have rights to sue you.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #3488
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    So we agree on several issues so I don't know why you flew off the handle and told other posters not to listen to me.

    Is it as nice? No. Agreed, especially for a signature project
    Is it as technically sound? Yes in a structural sense, though I see there are arguments that are may be valid around a high probability to corrosion. Agreed
    Did the City do it in a fair way that allowed all proponents to re-bid on that deviation? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it, but that hearsay. Agreed except that there were news reports of upset bidders


    Is it done and over with? Yea and it's a pretty good bridge. Not agreed. You stated that it is not nice so you are contradicting yourself. In my view, it is unfinished and should be doine to specicifications on the contractors dime or millions of dollars in penalties. Whether the other parts of the project were done to spec's, we have no knowledge.
    The contractor built it to the specs it was approved to build it to as far as anyone knows. The only thing we know (hearsay) is The City accepted a non-compliant bid with a significant technical deviation. I'm not sure how that is the contractor's responsibility? Are you implying the contractor just went and built the arches with bolted connections without the COE's knowledge or approval? Seriously?
    Also you are misquoting me, I said it isn't as nice, I didn't say it wasn't nice and it really is a good bridge. I drove over it and I got from one side to the other with no problem. Looks pretty good too, in my opinion, looking forward to the lighting.
    As to apologizing for the COE, I'm not. The change in connection detail appears to completely rest on them, likely due to a poor control estimate that did not have a sufficient budget for the project.
    I am however, painfully because they blew the schedule so badly, defending the contractor against the implication that that they went and built the arches all on their own with a non-compliant connection detail, which seems to be what EPRT is getting at.
    I really have nothing more I can offer on this.

  89. #3489

    Default

    Here are your exact words.


    "Is it as nice? No."

    Where did I say you said anything different. I actually agreed with you.

    I also stated that as an example, you agreed with the roof change.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 15-12-2017 at 10:54 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  90. #3490

    Default

    "As nice" is different that "not nice"

    EPRT, glasses must be slipping again.

  91. #3491
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Here are your exact words.


    "Is it as nice? No."

    Now you are saying that you did not say that.
    Okay...this feels petty to do.
    You said, "Not agreed. You stated that it is not nice so you are contradicting yourself"
    I just clarified, "Also you are misquoting me, I said it isn't as nice".
    Saying something "is not as nice", is not the same thing as saying "it is not nice". There is a word missing in your previous indirect quoting of me. I highlighted in bold each instance.

    I honestly mean this, sorry if I offended you previously, but let's not waste anymore of each others time on this. Have a good day.

  92. #3492

    Default

    Awhh EPRT edited his post so he doesn't look like he can't read. Clever, but you can see he edited his post after I corrected him.


    You should apologize to DanC now, PRT.

  93. #3493

    Default

    Actually I corrected it immediately and it was clear that I agreed with Dan no apologies required.

    Maybe he could apologize for his previous rants.


    Maybe
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  94. #3494

    Default

    Get a room, you guys...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  95. #3495
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,988

    Default

    Walk the Walterdale Shared Use Path
    December 20, 2017

    Media are invited to tour the Walterdale Bridge Shared Use Path (SUP) before it opens to the public. Project Manager Ryan Teplitsky will provide an update on the opening of the SUP and bridge aesthetic lighting.

    Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017
    Time: 3 p.m.
    Location: Walterdale Bridge

    Parking: Media can drive into the south laydown area off of Queen Elizabeth Park Road and park near the Shared Use Path.

    Personal protective equipment is not required although appropriate footwear is encouraged.

    Additional photo opportunity: The City of Edmonton will be testing the aesthetic lighting on the Walterdale Bridge from approximately 3 - 6:30 p.m. tonight. For those interested in capturing visuals of the colour variations at night, the lights will be visible once the sun sets.

    Media contact:
    Holly Budd
    Communications Manager
    780-221-1189
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  96. #3496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Walk the Walterdale Shared Use Path
    December 20, 2017

    Media are invited to tour the Walterdale Bridge Shared Use Path (SUP) before it opens to the public. Project Manager Ryan Teplitsky will provide an update on the opening of the SUP and bridge aesthetic lighting.

    Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017
    Time: 3 p.m.
    Location: Walterdale Bridge

    Parking: Media can drive into the south laydown area off of Queen Elizabeth Park Road and park near the Shared Use Path.

    Personal protective equipment is not required although appropriate footwear is encouraged.

    Additional photo opportunity: The City of Edmonton will be testing the aesthetic lighting on the Walterdale Bridge from approximately 3 - 6:30 p.m. tonight. For those interested in capturing visuals of the colour variations at night, the lights will be visible once the sun sets.

    Media contact:
    Holly Budd
    Communications Manager
    780-221-1189
    And confirmed for a Dec. 21 open for shared use path and lighting!

    December 20, 2017

    The City of Edmonton will open the Walterdale shared use path to the public beginning at
    7 a.m. on Thursday, December 21. The shared use path connects the sidewalk on the east side of the Walterdale Bridge. Trail connections will be completed in 2018.


    Aesthetic lighting on the bridge and shared use path will be turned on beginning with the Thursday, December 21 commute, lighting up the shortest day of the year.

    http://myemail.constantcontact.com/P...id=-i_nhia2Csw

  97. #3497

    Default

    Pretty lights from a unique view: http://coewebapps.edmonton.ca/walterdalebridge/. Pick the North View.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  98. #3498

    Default

    Nicely done

    Pray that none of the drives are distracted and have an accident.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #3499

    Default

    But where does the SUP get you on the north side? Is there a connection to the east side 105 St sidewalk?

  100. #3500
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,921

    Default

    The Walterdale looked great on Global News.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

Page 35 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •