SURREY (NEWS1130) – Ice chunks falling from the new multi-billion dollar Port Man Bridge and smashing through drivers’ windshields is not something you see everyday.
Many commuters unfortunately had to go through it earlier today.
This caused the RCMP to close the bridge for about five and a half hours.
But the planners of the Port Mann bridge are blaming the weather and not the design of the month old structure.
The CEO of the Transportation Investment Corporation, Mike Proudfoot, says it was related to a very unusual combination of winter conditions.
“This is an extreme weather situation. It is very rare, especially in the Lower Mainland but it does occur and it has had similar effects in other cable stay bridges in other jurisdictions. Snow can accumulate on any structure over roadways, and no bridge is immune to it,” says Proudfoot.
“We have our engineers on site and we’d like to apologize to all of the drivers for the inconvenience that has been caused today. With public safety a concern, we have instructed our contractor to review the situation, and we’re developing appropriate mitigation in these rare extreme events,” he adds.
Proudfoot is downplaying the design of the bridge as a factor. “The bridge is designed and is absolutely compatible and completely conforming to the Canadian bridge design code for cable stay bridges. The bridge design includes provisions for these types of activities or weather situation. The contractor is reviewing those provisions.”
He admits the bridge does not have heated cables which would help melt ice instead of having it build up.
“That’s one of the things that will be looked at. The specialists are reviewing this, they’re conducting their analysis and we’ll have further information on that when that’s completed,” explains Proudfoot.
There is no timeline for when the provisions will be implemented. “Drivers can be sure that we’re going to be closely monitoring the situation,” says Proudfoot.
Home Improvement Profiles
News1130 Apps
Tell us what you think!
News1130 Business Profile
How stupid to blame the weather…. The bridge was supposed to be design for ALL Weather ….
“The bridge is designed and is absolutely compatible and completely conforming to the Canadian bridge design code for cable stay bridges. The bridge design includes provisions for these types of activities or weather situation. The contractor is reviewing those provisions.”
First, the Canadian bridge design code for cable stay bridges is a minimum standard, as are all design codes. Mike Proudfoot, and everyone involved in building this system and in spending $3.3 billion of our tax dollars knows this to be true. Leaning on a minimum standard won’t help, Mike.
Second, if the design included provision for this type of situation, the incident would not have occurred, the contractor would have nothing to “review” and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
What are you going to do to fix it, and who will pay? The builder? The operator? The users? How about the damage sustained by the drivers who used the bridge that day? Beyond the deductible, who pays the rest of the damage costs? Those responsible for the design? ICBC (read “everyone in BC who drives a motor vehicle”)?
We need clarity and transparency. Minister Polak: Your thoughts?
At the very least, the minister of transportation should resign over this and an independent commission should fully investigate the entire process by which the decisions to build and award the contracts for this bridge were made.
Disclaimer first: I’m no fan of any politician and someone should answer for this. On that I agree. The fact, however, is that Mary Polak has been the transportation minister since September of this year. A little over three months. The last thing she should do is resign. She should clarify a few things, though. First, who is going to pay for the damage to vehicles involved? The bridge operator has said they will pay the deductible. How about the rest of the costs? ICBC only pays for that kind of thing up front. They always get their money back. Will it come from all insured drivers in the form of a rate hike? Second, who will pay to fix the design flaw in the bridge? The builder? the operator? Or will the users eventually pay through rate hikes? Or will it be fixed at all? Will it be easier to just shut the bridge down whenever there’s a risk to motorists (or to the owner’s and the operator’s bank accounts)?
Did the Alex Fraser bridge have the same problem? If not, why not? Was the weather that different over the couple of miles between the two? Why was this company chosen for the job? How did the cost of building the new Port Mann bridge compare to the Alex Fraser? Were there any political contributions involved in the awarding of the contract?
Maybe the best solution would be rings or short tubes around the cables which could be winched up and down the length of the cables in response to sensors telling a control system that there was extra weight building up on the cables.
Given that the same company had problems like this in Washington State with a similar bridge, why wasn’t a solution to this issue retrofitted on the Washington bridge and included in the design of the Port Mann?
Let’s not demolish the old Port Mann for a few years until we’re reasonably sure that the new one isn’t going to fall into the river any time soon.
Heated cables, now? Do the engineers consider the expansion/contraction factor when dealing with multiple-length cabling that supports the platform There can be unequal expansion/contraction along the length of the cables, thereby creating excessive strain on the whole structure? If they didn’t figure in the icing factor, will they be on top of any other “bombshells” that may occur with this type of bridge. Also, while the ambient air may not have any great influence on the over all cabling, I just wonder what corrosion factors are going to surface with applied heating, if they (cables) have a grease core.
Heated cables were offered and rejected on the basis of cost. Heating the cables to prevent ice buildup will not impart sufficient heat to the cable itself to affect expansion rates. It would maintain the exterior surface of the cables at just sufficiently above the freezing point to keep ice from forming, perhaps 10 degrees C. The internal cable temperature would not be significantly affected as the heat loss from the exterior surface is what would do the job of melting the ice. And the operator would want the heating system on for as short a period of time as is absolutely necessary as it would cost a fortune to run the thing.