Perceptions by Gerry Warner
Bet you’ve never heard of glaciolacustrine or “GLU” as it’s sometimes known? Maybe it’s time you did hear about
it, because living in Cranbrook, you walk on it or drive on it almost every day.
Still guessing? How about “glacial till?” That’s the more common
name for the substance sharing a major portion of the blame for the
catastrophic collapse last August of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam that dumped
millions of cubic metres of water and toxic tailings
into the previously pristine waters of Quesnel Lake.
But what has that got to do with Cranbrook? Actually, quite a lot.
The report released by the
Mount Polley Review Panel last week said the dam collapsed because of a major
engineering design flaw compounded by the fact that the dam was constructed on
GLU, or glacial till as most of Cranbrook sits on. And as surely as the experts
say the glacial till played a major role in the dam’s collapse that same till is largely
responsible for the many drainage problems plaguing Cranbrook that lead to the
abysmal condition of our roads and sidewalks not to mention flooded basements, cracked
house foundations and collapsed retaining walls.
Glacial till is composed of
ground up rock, fine sediments and clay left behind after the glaciers retreat
and is almost impenetrable to water, which is what caused many of the problems
at Mount Polly and here in Cranbrook. In short, water has great difficulty
draining through glacial till so it pools on top of it and over the seasonal
freeze and thaw cycle causes the ground above it to heave and subside which
causes roads and sidewalks to buckle and dams to collapse as was the case at Mount
Polley.
This presents a
tremendous construction problem because nothing can be done to stop the natural
freeze/thaw cycle which makes building on soils underlain by glacial till a
mostly futile proposition because anything built on it is bound to fail in a
fairly short time as the ground heaves and subsides underneath it. It took 20
years for engineers to find this out at Mount Polley and Lord only knows we’ve
seen this for the last century or so in Cranbrook.
However, roads, sidewalks
and house foundations built on glacial till aren’t nearly as problematic as
huge tailings pond dams because they’re relatively small in comparison. In the
case of municipal infrastructure, the standard construction technique for
dealing with the problem is relatively simple – remove the glacial till and
replace it with a standard subgrade such as gravel that water can drain through
and stop the ground from heaving.
I have seen this done
first-hand when the City redid the street in front of my house two summers ago
and did it the right way, namely going eight feet down and removing all the
glacial till, which you can see in the accompanying pictures and replacing it
with a gravel subgrade and then laying the pavement down on top of that. “Good
for 30 years,” the construction contractor told me and I don’t doubt it
although I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see it. So why have successive
City Councils done this so seldom in the past? You know the answer – cost. In
the case of 2A St. S, more than $600,000 for three short blocks! That eats an
awfully big hole out of the City’s annual roads budget of $3 million or so.
gravel subgrade,ready to be paved |
going deep to do it right |
soil profile showing glacial till |
The reason I bring this
up is the new Council is doing its budget deliberations for the 2015 – 2016
fiscal year and there’s been lots of talk about potholes and the sub-standard
condition of our roads. Much of the debate has centred on “mill and fill” where
the worn-out pavement is ground up and replaced by new pavement laid down on
top of the old road bed without removing and replacing the glacial till
underneath. That’s the cheap way to go, but it’s throwing good money after bad.
Therefore, I’m, hoping the new Council
doesn’t go this way because the result is obvious – yet another repaved
Cranbrook street crumbling in five or 10 years. Or even less.
The political choice is
simple – take the short view or the long. From a taxpayers’ point of view, I
think the best choice is obvious
No comments:
Post a Comment