Pickering Pickering GO Pedestrian Bridge | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | AECOM

It might be just a perspective issue, but does anyone else think those freight cars are disturbingly close to the bridge as they pass under it?
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
It might be just a perspective issue, but does anyone else think those freight cars are disturbingly close to the bridge as they pass under it?
Click to expand...
If it meets the H plate (20'-3") for clearance, then it meets the standard for clearance. Now, does it meet the electrification clearance???

I find it strange that the contractor installed the trusses since this is done either by Union 721 or an erection company who knows how to install this bridge correctly in the first place. Unless the steel fabricator had markings wrong on the truss, the only way the truss could be install upside down is someone miss reading the erection drawing. Wouldn't be the first time something thing got installed the wrong way by miss reading drawings, but a very rare case to happen in the first place.

Here I thought this bridge was done over a year ago and it has beaten Burlington GO Station hands down for length of time to do it.
 
interchange42 said:
Certainly more nuance in that story than what came out of the Auditor General's report.

42
Click to expand...


Yeah, I read that chapter of the Auditor General’s report and I was surprised that their only source of information was Metrolinx itself and they didn’t seem to talk to any of the other parties involved. Seems pretty one-sided IMO.

I don’t have any direct knowledge of the Pickering bridge project, but I have worked as a sub-contractor on a few Metrolinx projects over the past several years. Without specific details- my company was a sub-contractor retained to design a small component of larger new building projects. Each time, it was a total pain to get our part of the work done. The specifications for the design work were vague (at best) at the start of each project, and would change dramatically and multiple times as the work progressed. And these specifications were the type of things that would/should have been pretty much set before the work started, i.e. the size of a new building, what it would be used for, approx. occupant loads, that sort of stuff. Very frustrating to deal with as a consultant; I remember for one project I had to do a complete re-design four different times because the requirements kept changing.

In fairness, for the projects that I worked on I don’t know if these problems were caused by Metrolinx or by the contractor that we worked for because I mostly dealt with the contractor and not directly with Metrolinx. And (of course) I don’t know either way if that Pickering bridge contractor is competent or not. But I do think that the Auditor General should have gotten both sides of the story for their report. As that report stands now, all we see is the Auditor General pointing their finger at Metrolinx, and Metrolinx just passing the blame on to their contractors. Not terribly useful in the long run, as far as I can see.
 
drum118 said:
If it meets the H plate (20'-3") for clearance, then it meets the standard for clearance. Now, does it meet the electrification clearance???

I find it strange that the contractor installed the trusses since this is done either by Union 721 or an erection company who knows how to install this bridge correctly in the first place. Unless the steel fabricator had markings wrong on the truss, the only way the truss could be install upside down is someone miss reading the erection drawing. Wouldn't be the first time something thing got installed the wrong way by miss reading drawings, but a very rare case to happen in the first place.

Here I thought this bridge was done over a year ago and it has beaten Burlington GO Station hands down for length of time to do it.
Click to expand...
Metrolinx's reply in the Toronto Star article clarifies that it was not a truss that was installed upside down, but a beam meant to hold the ribs.

Funny that if the Auditor General's report in this instance is only based on Metrolinx info, the AG's office was very sloppy in interpreting it. Bureaucrats possibly out of their depth?

42
 
Blacksheep said:
Yeah, I read that chapter of the Auditor General’s report and I was surprised that their only source of information was Metrolinx itself and they didn’t seem to talk to any of the other parties involved. Seems pretty one-sided IMO.

I don’t have any direct knowledge of the Pickering bridge project, but I have worked as a sub-contractor on a few Metrolinx projects over the past several years. Without specific details- my company was a sub-contractor retained to design a small component of larger new building projects. Each time, it was a total pain to get our part of the work done. The specifications for the design work were vague (at best) at the start of each project, and would change dramatically and multiple times as the work progressed. And these specifications were the type of things that would/should have been pretty much set before the work started, i.e. the size of a new building, what it would be used for, approx. occupant loads, that sort of stuff. Very frustrating to deal with as a consultant; I remember for one project I had to do a complete re-design four different times because the requirements kept changing.

In fairness, for the projects that I worked on I don’t know if these problems were caused by Metrolinx or by the contractor that we worked for because I mostly dealt with the contractor and not directly with Metrolinx. And (of course) I don’t know either way if that Pickering bridge contractor is competent or not. But I do think that the Auditor General should have gotten both sides of the story for their report. As that report stands now, all we see is the Auditor General pointing their finger at Metrolinx, and Metrolinx just passing the blame on to their contractors. Not terribly useful in the long run, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
Metrolinx's history with the Bush shed rebuild at Union is pretty patchy, so I'd say their one-off projects still need to prove that there's civil engineering expertise in house.

42
 
cf3f88a2-fe8c-42c6-bb04-1c7016babb06_zpstgk2yusi.jpg
 
Been through it several times it’s very nice heated has great views even if of a highway. But it’s like being in a very long building.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Been through it several times it’s very nice heated has great views even if of a highway. But it’s like being in a very long building.
Click to expand...


Sadly I have to say this bridge is not heated - I cross it daily... no forced air ducts, no overhead radiant and no in floor.... I really wish it was heated - they could have easily installed overhead NG radiant heaters in the ticket vending area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top