New posts

rockslide @ twin bridges

Feb. 17, 2016, 5:01 a.m.
Posts: 142
Joined: Feb. 13, 2016

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.

While I don't doubt that the bridge's original load rating was compromised to some degree, all I am saying is that I'm still not convinced there was a pressing reason that I can see to remove it immediately as was done. Close it: yes. Then when the water level receded, the bridge and foundations could be properly inspected and an appropriate load rating (people and bikes only?) or further repair or removal action determined.

What the consultants report would have said would also have depended on the the frame of reference they were given by Metro. If Metro asked "Is is safe?" then for liability reasons they would have had to say no. If Metro asked "Can it be saved and what would the cost of this versus a new bridge be?" the answers may have been very different.

Was the water level this winter back up to the same level as the original winter or did the dam subside at least somewhat? Because of the closure I really don't go there often anymore other than a couple times last summer when the water level under the bridge was not that high.

In any case, there are people other than me who are a lot more up in arms about this than I am so I'm not sure why I'm carrying their torch. I just hate to see costly, knee jerk, nanny state decisions made that don't necessarily make sense and which limit my freedom of movement and my freedom to determine my own level of risk acceptance. When I waded across the river this summer just upstream of the bridge the foundations still visually appeared to be in good condition (I'm not saying they were or were not safe, just that they looked that way) which got me wondering what the process was that lead to this decision.

I may still follow up and see if I can get a copy of the consultants report but I'm pretty much done with this forum thread as no one here seems to have any more hard information than I do.

Feb. 17, 2016, 7:15 a.m.
Posts: 17760
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

Close it: yes. Then when the water level receded, the bridge and foundations could be properly inspected and an appropriate load rating (people and bikes only?) or further repair or removal action determined.

o.

Do you know the bridge was closed immediately in Dec 2014, and removed in the early summer of 2015 when the water levels subsided? I highly suspect an inspection was done to get the engineering report which recommended removal. They didn't just go off the pictures in this thread.

Why not head down and give a photo report on the water levels yourself this weekend, like several of us did when it happened? The area is not closed. Just the bridge is out. Head down the gravel road from the LSCR. Should be good if it rains all week.

March 17, 2016, 10:53 a.m.
Posts: 623
Joined: Sept. 7, 2011

An inspection was done. Bridge removed before it was damaged by future flows. Foundation was never end designed to be submerged to the degree it was and engineers decertified it.
All this armchair engineering is just a waste of time.

March 20, 2016, 8:45 a.m.
Posts: 28
Joined: July 20, 2015

An inspection was done. Bridge removed before it was damaged by future flows. Foundation was never end designed to be submerged to the degree it was and engineers decertified it.
All this armchair engineering is just a waste of time.

I find this kind of thing really annoying too. There's this constant mistrust of our public employees as if there's a conspiracy afoot around every fricking decision anyone makes about anything. Thanks, Obama.

You know who wouldn't care about the bridge or the safety of people near the bridge or downstream? Bangladesh.*

*(No offense to Bangladesh. You're an unfortunate example in this regard)

March 20, 2016, 10:13 a.m.
Posts: 34324
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

:S

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells

Jan. 25, 2017, 12:52 p.m.
Posts: 8935
Joined: Dec. 23, 2005

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/ParksPublications/FishermanTrailRiversideBridges-StatusUpdates.pdf

Metro has released some info on potential replacement bridges.

Foot bridge at the old Twin Bridges location.

Vehicle bridge at the end of Riverside Dr.

Jan. 25, 2017, 1:08 p.m.
Posts: 434
Joined: Jan. 31, 2005

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks/ParksPublications/FishermanTrailRiversideBridges-StatusUpdates.pdf

Metro has released some info on potential replacement bridges.

Foot bridge at the old Twin Bridges location.

Vehicle bridge at the end of Riverside Dr.

This is great news. Seems like a vehicle bridge finally connecting Seymour to Lynn Valley might alleviate some of the congestion on the #1 north of the Second Narrows?

There's nothing better than an Orangina after cheating death with Digger.

Jan. 25, 2017, 1:31 p.m.
Posts: 13932
Joined: Feb. 19, 2003

This is great news. Seems like a vehicle bridge finally connecting Seymour to Lynn Valley might alleviate some of the congestion on the #1 north of the Second Narrows?

I would think it's a vehicle bridge in that a Service vehicle could access it… I doubt they'd open it to the general public.

Jan. 25, 2017, 1:33 p.m.
Posts: 8935
Joined: Dec. 23, 2005

This is great news. Seems like a vehicle bridge finally connecting Seymour to Lynn Valley might alleviate some of the congestion on the #1 north of the Second Narrows?

Clarification that the vehicle bridge is crossing Canyon Creek. This connects Riverside to Fishermans and not crossing the Seymour.

Jan. 25, 2017, 2:07 p.m.
Posts: 4300
Joined: June 24, 2010

It looks like this also means they'd be restoring the closed section of Fisherman's on the east side of the river, and hopefully our access to Bottletop! The vehicle bridge at the north end of Riverside would indeed not cross the Seymour River, but simply allow access to the east side of the new pedestrian bridge.

flickr

Jan. 25, 2017, 6:08 p.m.
Posts: 8
Joined: Aug. 20, 2010

Clarification that the vehicle bridge is crossing Canyon Creek. This connects Riverside to Fishermans and not crossing the Seymour.

and is for maintenance vehicles only. seems quite clear that Fishermans on the east side will be reactivated, otherwise little point in building the new pedestrian bridge.

Jan. 25, 2017, 6:08 p.m.
Posts: 8
Joined: Aug. 20, 2010

Clarification that the vehicle bridge is crossing Canyon Creek. This connects Riverside to Fishermans and not crossing the Seymour.

and is for maintenance vehicles only. seems quite clear that Fishermans on the east side will be reactivated, otherwise little point in building the new pedestrian bridge. dibs on first run down re-opened Bottletop!

Jan. 25, 2017, 6:44 p.m.
Posts: 5488
Joined: April 10, 2005

A run down Bottletop is nice after a rip down Ned's. Will be good to get that possibility re-established.

Jan. 26, 2017, 12:18 p.m.
Posts: 5731
Joined: June 24, 2003

You couldn't build a vehicle crosssing at Seymour at the top of Riverside unless you went high up. It's a friggin cliff on the west side and would serve no purpose. Is Canyon Creek just at the top of Riverside Drive?

Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.

Jan. 26, 2017, 2:26 p.m.
Posts: 4300
Joined: June 24, 2010

You couldn't build a vehicle crosssing at Seymour at the top of Riverside unless you went high up. It's a friggin cliff on the west side and would serve no purpose. Is Canyon Creek just at the top of Riverside Drive?

Right now it's a metre-wide wooden bridge crossing the creek that goes right next to the last house at the top of Riverside.

flickr

Forum jump: