×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

(OP)
Dear non-colleagues

As an EE, I have very little knowledge in the field of road and bridge planning and construction. The Stockholm Slussen (google) has started a debate if it is better to renovate the existing and well functioning structures or tear down and build entirely new structures.

Tear down and build new will probably take around ten years and will definitely cause serious problems with communication between the northern and southern part of Stockholm.

Preserving the existing structure and repairing/fortifying it can be done without impairing communication in any higher extent. It may take time, but most of this communication centre will be functional during the renovation. Renovation will also cost less. Both in direct and indirect costs.

The question is: What pros and cons are there? It would be very interesting to have your views - as "outsiders" - on this. Tear down and build new - or careful restoration?

What do you say?

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

I don't think the question is that of simply evaluating engineering alternatives.  Many bridges face the end of their commercial usefulness well before they are finished structurally.  The capacity of the bridge may be limiting commerce, in which case the price of a new bridge with a higher capacity will no doubt pay for itself many times over in future years.  Is there any need for higher capacity to further commerce and communication links between north and south?

Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone. - Pablo Picasso

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

(OP)
No. The present arrangement works very well and a peripheral road will off-load this structure even more.

The arguments for tear down is that repair will take more planning, but I have a strong feeling that it is about Skanska and lobbying.

The "leading lady" in the city hall used to work for Skanska and the slow and careful repair that seems to ba a natural thing to do hasn't even been considered as an alternative.

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

Gunnar...as long as current and future capacity are accommodated, I am strongly in favor of rehabilitation schemes.  In pavement management programs (including bridges and substructures), life cycle costing has shown that managed rehabilitation is tremendously more cost effective than letting a system die then rebuilding from scratch.  These are real numbers with real history over 40 or 50 years of validation.

But...as we all know, such considerations don't include politics.

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

This seems to be a massive project with numerous stakeholders. As such the project discussion would seem to be beyond a simple paragraph or two from a forum like this.

Do you have a link to the project documentation?

A comparable project may be replacement of the Tappan Zee bridge in New York City. Six options were prepared. Two of them involve keeping the old bridge and repairing it, either a little or a lot. A complete rehabilitation of the Tappan Zee would cost at least $2 billion, the planners estimated.

The four remaining options call for a new bridge, which would be built alongside the old one, just north of the existing span. Each involves a different configuration of mass transit - either commuter trains, light rail or express buses - sandwiched between the traffic lanes. The estimates for a new bridge range from $9 billion to $14.5 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/nyregion/17tappan.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1324065712-MOJtXJgweHZbGlmkH+MTxQ

The selected bridge replacement project without transit is estimated to cost $5.2 billion.

Of course one must bear in mind that municipal projects have historically been under estimated.

Ten years for the project seem to be on the long side. The actual construction should be 2-3 years.

 

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

based on the masterplan including two pedestrian bridges and a vehicle bridge and various site improvements and maintaining traffic across the locks during the entire process, I think 10 years might be possible. The architect says 7 years, but I see no way this could be done in 2. The old system is over 75 years old. Engineering analysis can help determine if anything can be salvaged.

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/1710/Default.aspx

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

Sounds like a complicated cost benefit analysis needs to be made.  I highly suspect that the folks here don't have the information necessary, nor the time, to devote to such an analysis.

Hate to be a party pooper, but that's how I see it.  If you held a gun to my head and told me to guess, I'd say rehab it.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

We have rehabilitated bridges in Connecticut including the Arrigoni suspension bridge between Portland and Middletown. This bridge needed much repair including roller bearings, suspension cable and structural steel replacement.  This bridge was opened to traffic at all times although lane closures had to be implemented.  Replacement was out of the question because traffic had to be opened at all times.  There was no areas where a temporary bridge could be erected to totally replace the existing bridge.
Another bridge in Westfield,MA was to be replaced but that was to be done only when a new bridge was first erected about 150' downstream.
So situations will dictate how a bridge is to be taken care of.  While analysis may tell you that you should build a new bridge, local politicians may object because of the economic impact on their communities  

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

A substantial part of the equation is how well the local contract- administration/oversight/inspection is structured.

Are the existing structures deficient?  Predicted remaining service life of foundations?

"Tear down and build new will probably take around ten years and will definitely cause serious problems with communication between the northern and southern part of Stockholm."

Usually the utilities; water, sewer, gas, communications relocations are a critical part of a large civil project.  If these lines are located, relocated before (timely integration of some during) construction begins you can realize cost and delay savings, and eliminate interruptions in services to users. Where will the monies come from to do this?

The phasing of the project, new build or revamping/adding to existing, while maintaining capacity and safety is a key component to success of a project.


Most projects of any size will run over cost wise due to unforeseen
conditions, changes in the character of the work, etc.

If damages for time overruns are included in the contract(s), and the folks overseeing the contract are experienced, and the utilities are dialed in, and the weather cooperates, and the plans/specifications are well formulated, and the public is behind it....

It comes down to money.  Obviously to renovate the existing, done conservatively, should cost less than the total rebuild, if the old stuff is usable.

If money is not an issue here, "dig" in.

RE: The Stockholm Slussen Project - Outside views wanted

it's difficult to make a complete or accurate comparison here in the US with the Oresund link.  The Tappan Zee bridge as noted above is a truss bridge while the link has a Cable-stay bridge.  Generally speaking the cable-stay will outlast the truss bridge provided the geometrics and future traffic numbers can be accommondated.  Suspension bridges generally also last pretty long depending on the corrosion protection system chosen for the suspender cables.  Though again most suspension bridges have a stiffening truss which will be likely be compromised before other major parts of the suspension bridge.

So long as no cables have to be replaced, I would suggest that repair is a good alternate though once the bridge hits a 40 or 50 year life there is a great escalation in cost more and more each year thereafter to maintain and operate.

A good choice may be a parallel crossing that will take traffic off the bridge and thus increase the service life....

Regards,
Qshake
pipe
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources