rockslide @ twin bridges

From page three

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/10858434_10152918401735350_8504926815536182754_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9[HTML_REMOVED]oh=b9d83ae67abce95ad86915faf6c96fc8[HTML_REMOVED]oe=573145A3

And that was after they cleaned things up.

And that was after they cleaned things up.

Well from the picture it does not look too bad after the clean up.

I still would like to know what the biggest reason was for pulling the bridge. What was the the scenario that they were worried about that brought them to that point?

Were they hoping to save the bridge and re-use it by pulling it? From what I have heard, it does not sound as if that is an option on the table now. Was it too badly damaged during removal? I wonder if anyone has done a FOI request on this or even just asked the question.

This was Metro's decision, correct?

The bridge was pulled so it did not end up downstream part of the jam up.

My take on it is that someone high up in Metro Van made the autocratic decision to remove the bridge before any sort of engineering study was done. Seems like a decision based on liability concerns rather than structural analysis. The railings of the bridge were a debris trap but that could have been mitigated with a little creative engineering. The river is no where near the level of the bridge deck for most of the year. The bridge could easily have been closed during high water events, and the proposed blasting of the slide will make these events even less likely. The decision to remove the bridge was poorly handled and too hasty in my opinion.

I recall that it was looked at by engineers and they said it was no longer safe.

I recall that it was looked at by engineers and they said it was no longer safe.

Any idea where you heard or read this?

Safe for what? The large truck load rating it originally was likely rated for or a couple people on mountain bikes? I'm pretty sure it would have been safe for a few hundred pounds :)

If it did come off its foundation, it is pretty likely it would have sunk long before it got anywhere near the slide. However, it would have been more expensive remove or recover at that point.

My other question is: Was the bridge destroyed during removal? Could it not have been removed in such a way that it could have been at least partially reused, certainly with a reduced load rating?

Like others have said, this really sounds like a knee jerk reaction but I would really like to hear Metro's side before going all in on this opinion.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/Search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Twin%20bridges

You wont find what you're looking for on NSMB, but might find a couple answers on Metros site. They held public meetings to go over it. What a gongshow that was.

Sign up to thier email list to stay informed.

[HTML_REMOVED]Link somewhere, but I cant be bothered.[HTML_REMOVED]

Or go all FOI on them.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/FOI/Pages/default.aspx

Any idea where you heard or read this?

The info is earlier in this thread.

But there is nothing to worry about. I e-mailed Donald Trump. He said he's not only going to get the bridge rebuilt, but he's also going to get Monica to pay for it.

Any idea where you heard or read this?

Safe for what? The large truck load rating it originally was likely rated for or a couple people on mountain bikes? I'm pretty sure it would have been safe for a few hundred pounds :)

If it did come off its foundation, it is pretty likely it would have sunk long before it got anywhere near the slide. However, it would have been more expensive remove or recover at that point.

My other question is: Was the bridge destroyed during removal? Could it not have been removed in such a way that it could have been at least partially reused, certainly with a reduced load rating?

Like others have said, this really sounds like a knee jerk reaction but I would really like to hear Metro's side before going all in on this opinion.

The bridge deck had been replaced relatively recently(within the last 5 yrs+/-). However I think/believe the biggest concern were the piers/foundations, which were the original going way back, had been undermined by the (flowing)water and were no longer structurally stable enough to support the bridge deck.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/Search/Pages/results.aspx?k=Twin%20bridges

You wont find what you're looking for on NSMB, but might find a couple answers on Metros site. They held public meetings to go over it. What a gongshow that was.

Sign up to thier email list to stay informed.

[HTML_REMOVED]Link somewhere, but I cant be bothered.[HTML_REMOVED]

Or go all FOI on them.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/FOI/Pages/default.aspx

Thanks, that's going to make for some interesting reading and research!

Okay, from Metro's website, the best information I've been able to get so far is:

"The bridge was deemed substandard as a result of the change that occurred to the river and a public risk for a number of reasons, again because the river had fundamentally changed. If we put the bridge back, it would be unsafe.The old bridge was designed for a certain height of river. The river has changed since then. After the rockslide, the bridge was actually forming a blockage of large woody debris floating down the river during large storm events. If the bridge surface was forced off its vertical supports it would fall into the river causing a significant potential threat to both the river and to public safety. The consultants told us that we had to remove it. "

Has anyone actually seen this report? I will have to search further and see if I can find it. I like how they blame it all on the "consultants"! "They told us that we had to remove it"! We had no choice and no decision making ability! Based on other consultant reports I have seen, I would speculate that the consultants did not use any such forceful language. More likely, they "suggested" it be removed, which has a much different legal implication.

Write a letter to the district or council members if you are so outraged.

Okay, from Metro's website, the best information I've been able to get so far is:

"The bridge was deemed substandard as a result of the change that occurred to the river and a public risk for a number of reasons, again because the river had fundamentally changed. If we put the bridge back, it would be unsafe.The old bridge was designed for a certain height of river. The river has changed since then. After the rockslide, the bridge was actually forming a blockage of large woody debris floating down the river during large storm events. If the bridge surface was forced off its vertical supports it would fall into the river causing a significant potential threat to both the river and to public safety. The consultants told us that we had to remove it. "

Has anyone actually seen this report? I will have to search further and see if I can find it. I like how they blame it all on the "consultants"! "They told us that we had to remove it"! We had no choice and no decision making ability! Based on other consultant reports I have seen, I would speculate that the consultants did not use any such forceful language. More likely, they "suggested" it be removed, which has a much different legal implication.

Since I work with engineering consultants and their E[HTML_REMOVED]O insurers, let me say that the geotechnical and or structural consultants would have used strong language. If they didn't then there could be an issue. I'm certain that bridge was fucked. The correct thing to do was remove it.