Any way. Checker Cabs...errrrrr, Ready to Engage is angry that Nenshi is calling them out for bullying tactics, and in a brilliant usage of "I know you are but what am I?" are now calling Nenshi a bully:
The pipelines 'could, be an issue. The pipelines in question would fall under CDs z662 meaning that if they go under roads they require an additional design allowance so the wall thickness of the pipelines would have to be thicker.
An alternative to this would be to install casings around the pipelines which would be expensive to do after the fact.
So it really depends on how the initial lines were designed if the pipeline are an issue or not. But worst case it just adds cost to the project.
Are these new buses heavier than any other vehicle that uses that road already?
It's like there's a handful of legitimate concerns that could be addressed by the city, but their being raised but the worse people in the city. And these people are hell bent on throwing a temper tantrum and derailing everything if their don't get their way.
Are these new buses heavier than any other vehicle that uses that road already?
I don't think any of the double length buses run along 14th yet, so the answer would probably be yes. That said, these same busses spread their weight over more wheels/surface area. I barely remember my high school physics, but I doubt the increase would be problematic.
Are these new buses heavier than any other vehicle that uses that road already?
Vehicles aren't driving over the pipeline right now though. It's under the East side of 14th by the sound barrier, there is currently a grass shoulder there.
It's like there's a handful of legitimate concerns that could be addressed by the city, but their being raised but the worse people in the city. And these people are hell bent on throwing a temper tantrum and derailing everything if their don't get their way.
Are these new buses heavier than any other vehicle that uses that road already?
The gas pipeline crossing planner has more to worry about damage from regular buses than the articulated buses.
A surprising turn of circumstances has 40' low floor buses easily exceeding Alberta's single axle weight restriction for highways and roads. It turns out that just a few passenger will max out the gross weight restriction.
Articulated buses fare a little better due to the third axle. (note: articulated buses will also become overweight when at max capacity)
Vehicles aren't driving over the pipeline right now though. It's under the East side of 14th by the sound barrier, there is currently a grass shoulder there.
Ok, that makes sense. But assume the answer is simple then - design it for the expected load
I would never live in the SW because of the traffic and transport issues. I can't believe people are against projects to improve these problems.
I grew up in this part of the city, and one of the things that's overlooked is how many more cars are on the roads today than there were 30 years ago, even in neighbourhoods with no new housing units. When I was a kid, each household had 1, sometimes 2 cars. Now, with adult kids living at home and having their own cars, there are often 2-3 cars per household. With the Tsuu T'ina on one side, and Glenmore reservoir on another, you end up with bad traffic congestion.
Of course, the best way to deal with congestion is to increase public transport capacity and make it more convenient to use. But these grumpy old farts just want to turn the clock back to 1991.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
If the pipeline was built to spec - ie. 300mm or more beneath the surface, there is zero issues.
The weight of the soil would have a larger impact than a bus.
Is 300mm out of Z662? I don't have a copy here with me.
In any case, the Pipeline Act has a section in it that states coverage must be the greater of either Z662 specs or 1.4m within a highway right of way. It also states that for pipe under a road, the casing or thicker wall pipe must extend the entire width if the right if way. Hopefully it's already built to the higher spec because it would be an insane cost to case the pipe along the length of 14th that the new road would be on.
The Following User Says Thank You to llwhiteoutll For This Useful Post:
Is 300mm out of Z662? I don't have a copy here with me.
In any case, the Pipeline Act has a section in it that states coverage must be the greater of either Z662 specs or 1.4m within a highway right of way. It also states that for pipe under a road, the casing or thicker wall pipe must extend the entire width if the right if way. Hopefully it's already built to the higher spec because it would be an insane cost to case the pipe along the length of 14th that the new road would be on.
As the said pipeline most likely lies within the existing road allowance, albeit not under the existing pavement, there is a good chance it was designed to lie under the road .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
but API 1102 provides guidance for this type of calculation. It's quite a simple calculation that the project engineers can and should perform.
Careful, doesn't API 1102 apply for crossing roads - typical at a crossing angle of 30 degrees or larger? Their reference graphs (which my understanding the standard is based off) may not apply for pipelines lying under a road at essentially a 0 degree crossing angle.
Is 300mm out of Z662? I don't have a copy here with me.
In any case, the Pipeline Act has a section in it that states coverage must be the greater of either Z662 specs or 1.4m within a highway right of way. It also states that for pipe under a road, the casing or thicker wall pipe must extend the entire width if the right if way. Hopefully it's already built to the higher spec because it would be an insane cost to case the pipe along the length of 14th that the new road would be on.
The spec isn't out of Z662. The spec would be in a city building code somewhere, which (I would expect) is far more stringent than that of Z662. I'm not familiar with road building codes, for example, but I'm sure there are specs for gravel thickness, road bed thickness, and what can go into these layers in terms of pipelines, sewers, power cables and whatnot.
Z662 does restrict the stress level of pipelines within populated areas.
Quote:
Careful, doesn't API 1102 apply for crossing roads - typical at a crossing angle of 30 degrees or larger? Their reference graphs (which my understanding the standard is based off) may not apply for pipelines lying under a road at essentially a 0 degree crossing angle.
The worst case scenario is a perpendicular 90 degree cross because you would have the most weight over the least amount of support (ie. the length of pipe affected).
If you're driving over the length of the pipe, rather than the width, it's even less of an issue, because the weight of the bus is spread out over a longer length of metal. In new construction, the 90 degree angle is preferred even though it's the worst case scenario because you have a shorter length of pipe that you basically cannot get to. API 1102 is a spec for new construction, which is why you are absolutely correct in that they suggest 90 degree crossings, but even in API 1102, it states regarding the 90 degree crossing:
Quote:
This type of orientation generally is preferred in new pipeline construction and is likely to result in pipeline stresses larger than those associated with pipelines crossing at oblique angles to the highway.
The reason that they suggest this, is because it's less pipe that is subject to these forces, no matter how small. When you have the luxury of doing something from scratch, you can just plan for the slightly higher forces, and just expose less of your pipe to the threat. For old pipe, you just do the stress calculation as is and apply the appropriate safety factors.
Oh please, quit shilling. This minor hiccup is par for course for any mayor, public council or corporate individual in the public relations realm across north america. You don't get to just pull the plug on public consultation just because a few lunatic fringe rabble-rouse. It's all about the social license bud.
Oh please, quit shilling. This minor hiccup is par for course for any mayor, public council or corporate individual in the public relations realm across north america. You don't get to just pull the plug on public consultation just because a few lunatic fringe rabble-rouse. It's all about the social license bud.
I work for the dark side now, didn't you hear? ;-)
Also consultation on the project has not ended, just open house events. Engage staff endure a lot of abuse generally, but this one was out of hand. It's also stopped being a productive venue for meaningful consultation. People can engage with the project online and communicate with staff individually.
Oh please, quit shilling. This minor hiccup is par for course for any mayor, public council or corporate individual in the public relations realm across north america. You don't get to just pull the plug on public consultation just because a few lunatic fringe rabble-rouse. It's all about the social license bud.
I don't see verbal abuse, threats, etc as a "minor hiccup". They are a violation of the very social license you tout.
I'm sorry, but if you (and I mean people generally) can't convey a point - whether in favour or opposition - without some basic decorum....I really don't know what else to say.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to RedHot25 For This Useful Post:
