nfitz
Superstar
And terrorism!You do know what would happen if they decide to build a bridge across Lake Ontario? Cost overruns...
And terrorism!You do know what would happen if they decide to build a bridge across Lake Ontario? Cost overruns...
Bridge across Lake Ontario would also be twice as long and need to be a lot wider.Lake Pontchartrain has an average depth of 12-14ft deep, and a maximum of 65ft. Lake Ontario has an average depth of 283ft and maximum depth of over 800ft.
A bridge across Lake Ontario would functionally be one of the largest infrastructure achievements on the planet and isn't really practically possible.
That said, MTO did briefly look at an under-lake tunnel from Oakville to Stoney Creek about a decade ago before ruling it out for cost reasons...
View attachment 495739View attachment 495740View attachment 495741View attachment 495742
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 freewaysThere is no possible way you could serve a horseshoe shape populated area with high quality rail transit. We should definitely run a freeway along the escarpment... you can't build anything there because of that rock hill but with highway construction you can just blow up part of that rock and use it for fill and a roadbed. Everyone wins.
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.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?
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.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.
View attachment 496228
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.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.
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.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...
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.
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.True at the time of the proposal, but the sub-surface floating highway in Norway is 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.
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.
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.Based on the Norway tender value, a straight line between Toronto and St. Catharine's 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.
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.