|
|
|
- Thread starter Haljackey
- Start date
Deadpool X
Senior Member
Bridge across Lake Ontario would also be twice as long and need to be a lot wider.
Talking about MTO's tunnel plan, it doesn't save any distance, it goes along the lake shore. Why didn't they plan it diagonally so save some distance?
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I'm going to reply to myself to make this clear... this was being sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason the existing Lakeshore-Niagara line couldn't be made into a high-speed and commuter corridor with some kind of north-south transit link parallel to the Welland canal. To be clear, someone with the handle "Enviro" does not want the escarpment blown up for freeways
ericmacm
Active Member
The tunnel plan hugged the shore because of Lake Ontario’s bathymetry. Keeping the proposed tunnel as shallow as possible is what would make it technically feasible. Along the direct shoreline, the lake is around 20m deep maximum with a rough plateau, as indicated in the drawings, which is perfect for construction. Going directly diagonal would send it closer to 50-100m deep, which would drastically increase the cost of any tunnelling and make it totally impractical.
Last edited:
Haljackey
Active Member
Ya Lake Ontario is too deep to make a real tunnel or bridge supports would have to be too deep. Norway is exploring the idea of a floating tunnel to cross some fjords in some crazy places, or a floating bridge.
I've always envisioned one for Lake Erie however- its the shallowest of the Great Lakes and a freeway and/or rail/high speed rail line could connect London to Cleveland. Lots of people from Ohio listen to London's FM radio stations for some reason as the signal reaches them.
It could also connect/pass to the east of the EV gigafactory underway in St Thomas. Using this would be a quick way to get their product to the US market as well as recieve the materials it needs to make them
I also included a couple other possible tunnels as they would be shorter- but they are nowhere near as useful since Gordie Howe and Peace Bridges are sorta nearby. They also pass through or alongside protected parks.
I've always envisioned one for Lake Erie however- its the shallowest of the Great Lakes and a freeway and/or rail/high speed rail line could connect London to Cleveland. Lots of people from Ohio listen to London's FM radio stations for some reason as the signal reaches them.
It could also connect/pass to the east of the EV gigafactory underway in St Thomas. Using this would be a quick way to get their product to the US market as well as recieve the materials it needs to make them
I also included a couple other possible tunnels as they would be shorter- but they are nowhere near as useful since Gordie Howe and Peace Bridges are sorta nearby. They also pass through or alongside protected parks.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
I am curious to know how depth of tunnel makes it more expensive. In case of a bridge, deeper the waters, taller the columns. But a tunnel;s cross section is the same irrespective of depth. Also the tunnel will be 10-20 meters below the lake bed, so the soil/earth above it will take the pressure of the water above and the tunnel won't have to worry about that pressure.
turini2
Active Member
RE: Lake Ontario tunnel - Sometimes when coming up with various options for a report... you have to including ludicrously expensive options to make another expensive option seem a lot more reasonable...
100% not speaking from experience here...
100% not speaking from experience here...
turini2
Active Member
The deeper the tunnel required, the longer it has to be - something like a 3% gradient may require a very long tunnel to get deep enough. This is one reason why immersed tube tunnels became a popular choice, because you don't need to dig in bedrock, the tunnel sits on the bottom on the river/lake/sea.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
100% that's all it was. It was a part of MTO's "Niagara to GTA Study" where they looked at high level capacity needs in the western GTA through to Niagara.
The final recommendation was widening the QEW and Burlington Skyway over the long term - but to get to that, they looked at the tunnel, the Mid-Penn highway, etc.
rbt
Senior Member
True at the time of the proposal, but the sub-surface floating highway in Norway will be a demonstration of another way of doing it. It's under 4km but the mechanism doesn't seem limited by length; currents at the Norway tunnel are much stronger than anything that would be experienced in Lake Ontario.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I don't think anyone is arguing if it would be technically possible - engineering solutions exist for almost anything these days - it's just that it wouldn't be a financially reasonable project.
A fun fact is that Ohio DOT did have preliminary plans for a cross-lake interstate to connect Cleveland to London back in the 1970's, as it's a much shallower lake and could be done with a Lake Pontchartrain causeway type project. It obviously didn't go anywhere at the time.
rbt
Senior Member
Based on the Norway tender value, a straight line between Toronto and St. Catharines would be around $10B. Not cheap, but not an unusually high figure for a highway project either, particularly when you can avoid large amounts of land acquisition.
just east of the creek
Active Member
Does the Norway model allow for water transport to cross - thinking of Hamilton Harbour, and other industry specific dockage scattered as long the shoreline between Toronto and St. Kitts. And assuming the cross lake connection would come ashore before crossing the Welland canal approaches.
But interesting, especially seeing the $ being spent on an, as yet, unopened Crosstown/Line 5.
NW87
Active Member
A video from that Oshawa Simcoe Street overpass demolition two weekends ago.
rbt
Senior Member
Absolutely. The Norway tunnel will have a neutral buoyancy at a depth of about 30 meters, sufficient for any vessel currently in service. There have been oil tankers in the 80's that may have struggled at speed due to the squat effect, but they've all been scrapped and modern designs aren't as deep.
Max draft for ships running between Montreal and Toronto is 8m: A tunnel at 15m would be sufficient.
Last edited: