News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

W. K. Lis said:
Total cost was $40,228,929 (net of GST/HST). All that money down the drain, but needed to be done.
Click to expand...
Had that pipe collapsed, backing up sewers all over East York and North York ... and likely requiring temporary dumping of the sewage into the Don River for months, I'd imagine the costs would have been far higher!

Quite amazing how poor shape it was in. Makes you wonder what other surprises lie in those old trunk sewers beneath our creeks.

I wouldn't want to be the one in the tunnel taking those pictures, with failure a possibility? I thought it would have been done remotely ... but then what's holding up the tape measure, and who made those paint marks on the concrete?
 
nfitz said:
Had that pipe collapsed, backing up sewers all over East York and North York ... and likely requiring temporary dumping of the sewage into the Don River for months, I'd imagine the costs would have been far higher!

Quite amazing how poor shape it was in. Makes you wonder what other surprises lie in those old trunk sewers beneath our creeks.

I wouldn't want to be the one in the tunnel taking those pictures, with failure a possibility? I thought it would have been done remotely ... but then what's holding up the tape measure, and who made those paint marks on the concrete?
Click to expand...

The more disturbing thing is that it isn't even a particularly old sewer - certainly not among the oldest in the city.

AoD
 
Things are moving along:

Notice: Upcoming Prequalification of Contractors – Stage 1 of the Don River & Central Waterfront Wet Weather Flow Reduction Project - Construction of Coxwell Bypass Tunnel and Shafts
Notice for upcoming prequalification of contractors for the construction of the Coxwell Bypass Tunnel and associated vertical storage/access shafts representing Stage 1 of the City's 5-Stage Wet Weather Flow Reduction Project

This is not a bid solicitation. This is a notice to potential Respondents of an upcoming programme to Prequalify Contractors for the construction of Stage 1 – the Coxwell Bypass tunnel – which is to be tendered in late 2017, and go to construction in 2018. It is anticipated that the prequalification documents will be issued by the City of Toronto (“City”) in late February or early March, 2017.

The Coxwell Bypass Tunnel (CB Tunnel) is to be constructed over the next 5 to 6 years and will form the backbone of the City's wet weather flow control programme to protect water quality in the Lower Don River and the Inner Harbour. The Coxwell Bypass tunnel will provide redundancy for the existing Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer and eventually accept a series of connections to intercept storm and Combined Sewer Overflows. The CB tunnel is proposed to be a 6.3 m (finished inner diameter) tunnel lined with precast tunnel segments, beginning at the City's Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant and running 10.6 km to Coxwell Ravine Park. In addition to the tunnel, there are five (5) vertical storage shafts (20m and 22m diameter). The tunnel is to be constructed at a depth of approximately 50 to 60 m in Georgian Bay Shale.

The City wishes to prequalify contractors either individually or as part of joint ventures or consortia. Prequalified contractors will then be invited to bid on the Coxwell Bypass tunnel tender once it is released in the third quarter of 2017.

And now a Tender Call:

bnr-constserv2.jpg

Tender - Prequalification
ecblank.gif
Call number: 3907-17-7007
Commodity: Construction Services, Construction Services
Description: Pre-Qualification of General Contractors for the Don River & Central Waterfront
Pre-Qualification of General Contractors for the Don River & Central Waterfront Wet Weather Flow Project – Coxwell Bypass Tunnel
Issue date: February 17, 2017
ecblank.gif
Closing date: March 24, 2017
at 12:00 Noon
Notes: Viewing Copy
pdf.gif
3907-17-7007 - Final - Viewing Copy.pdf (1333 Kbytes) - Posted on 02/17/2017 03:14:27 PM

and a map:

Coxwell.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Coxwell.JPG
    Coxwell.JPG
    135.3 KB · Views: 1,909
I haven't heard about this project. Which is really a different Coxwell bypass than the first part of the thread - which was to replace a much smaller compromised segment just north of Coxwell/O'Connor. This is a huge project.
 
1. Huge.
2. We can build a sewer project of this magnitude, but no money for Relief Line?
3. Looking at the route, (tongue in cheek) let's just build three tunnels down there while we're at it. Two for trains and one for water 'n shit.
 
Its listed as 36.3 meters right around where the Relief Line will pass by. Thats going to be a added challenge to get the Relief Line under the Don and now above this.
 
Kitsune said:
Its listed as 36.3 meters right around where the Relief Line will pass by. Thats going to be a added challenge to get the Relief Line under the Don and now above this.
Click to expand...
Which is why I wasn't really kidding when I suggested building at the same time. It's far easier to build certain things in one go.

Imagine building Science Centre Station for Line 5 and then digging another hole 20m deep in the ground for the relief line interchange. Surely to God the powers that be can coordinate this shit. It is far easier (and cheaper) to do in one go.
 
TransitBart said:
Which is why I wasn't really kidding when I suggested building at the same time. It's far easier to build certain things in one go.

Imagine building Science Centre Station for Line 5 and then digging another hole 20m deep in the ground for the relief line interchange. Surely to God the powers that be can coordinate this shit. It is far easier (and cheaper) to do in one go.
Click to expand...
And this explains why it is obvious that nobody is serious (among current elected officials) about building the DRL to Eglinton (or beyond).
 
TransitBart said:
Which is why I wasn't really kidding when I suggested building at the same time. It's far easier to build certain things in one go.

Imagine building Science Centre Station for Line 5 and then digging another hole 20m deep in the ground for the relief line interchange. Surely to God the powers that be can coordinate this shit. It is far easier (and cheaper) to do in one go.
Click to expand...
BurlOak said:
And this explains why it is obvious that nobody is serious (among current elected officials) about building the DRL to Eglinton (or beyond).
Click to expand...
I understand the frustration with the political support (or lack thereof) for the DRL, but do we really think current elected officials are aware of any of the depths of either project and any conflicts that may or may not exist?

Sure, it might be cheaper to coordinate their building at the same time, unfortunately it's not so easy to coordinate the funding requirements. Not to mention that the Coxwell Bypass is miles ahead of the DRL project and we shouldn't hold it up for who knows how many years until the DRL is shovel ready.

For those harping about this project being built and not the DRL, don't underestimate the sheer importance and value of this project. Wet weather flows result in untreated sewage and partially treated sewage being released to the environment. The Don River area of the Lakefront has long been identified as an area of great concern and Torontonians should be proud that the City has been making great progress with their wet weather flow master plan for the last decade. This project, the Ashbridges Bay UV treatment project and the new Ashbridges Bay WWTP outfall are much needed to improve water quality in and around the Don River.

See here for more information on the plan: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=972bab501d8ce310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
 
Last edited:
And I believe this project is funded through water/wastewater rates, which is tied to capital and operational requirements. Transit on the other hand doesn't have a dedicated revenue source.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
And I believe this project is funded through water/wastewater rates, which is tied to capital and operational requirements. Transit on the other hand doesn't have a dedicated revenue source.

AoD
Click to expand...
Water rates were allowed to rise at 9% for years, but headline property tax rates? Not on the Ford-Tory taxfighter mayor watches.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top