That makes sense. Thanks for the information.

I sometimes wonder about the boardwalk and I am somewhat amazed that more people have fallen into the harbour, since it doesn't have a safety railing. The boardwalk bridge over the water would have been even more hazardous.

From what i understand the bridge is basically complete right now and just needs to be floated into place from a dartmouth side location.... The person i was talking to said it would be installed very quickly with the parts on each end taking the longest due to the tie in with the existing wharfs.

The coast guard does have concerns but they have concerns about everything that happens on the water or near it. They are about safety period thus that is basically all they think about..

Coast Guard will be concerned about the movement of the walkway, the hours of operation,the number of people using the walkway, the supervision of the walkway, the safety devices, the provision of a boat patrol, emergency procedures, training of personnel, use by those with disabilities and they will set standards for the conditions when the walkway will be closed. All of the details which are examined when there is an accident. The question will be : Who pays ?

Yet all of those items excepting the first and last would be no different from issues regarding the previous land-based walkway that had no railing whatsoever on the water side. It sounds like a good example of a bureaucracy raising objections simply because they can.

And of course ALL of those items already apply to the floating docks along the berths. If it is indeed a problem, then processes should already be in place to handle them. If the Coast Guard is raising objections, then I absolutely agree Keith.

You cannot compare the present walkways with the proposed 560 foot walkway because they are not on the water surface, do not move with the water and are much wider than the 3m wide floaters. It is not bureaucracy, it is an example of planning for the worst possible outcome.
The floating docks alongside berths are almost exclusively used by people with boats or people boarding a tour boat.

...Which are all completely open to the public, just.. nobody ever thinks to use them. When the oppourtunity presents itself, I enjoy walking on them.

I think Keith is indeed talking about the floating docks which are all already quite present and accessible along our waterfront.

Keith is talking about ' the previous land-based walkway'.
The floating walkway will not be installed until mid June : http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...bour-1.4125073

Ay ay ay my chicas, Mama does not the like this floating walkway business.

What if Mama fall?? Mama cannot swim!

Mama thinks Coasts Guard should have all the concerns, you know. Mama need the flotation devices to cross this sinking walkway from the devil.

Much love for my chicas!

Beso

Mama

Meanwhile in the State of Washington they use floating bridges to carry multiple lanes of vehicular traffic over vast distances. Clearly this is impossible and hence would be prohibited in Nova Scotia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergr...g_Bridge_(2016)

The US$4.5 billion apples and the $800,000 peanuts.
The expensive apples does not float on the water and is attached to 77 concrete pontoons.
" The new bridge was designed to be more stable in stronger winds and raised the bridge deck much higher above the surface of the lake than the old bridge.
The floating bridge is laid atop 77 concrete pontoons that float above the water and are secured by 58 anchors to the lake bottom.[32] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergr...g_Bridge_(2016)

Clearly the comparison is risible.
Try harder next time Keith.

Mama might be safest to enjoy the waterfront from afar. She'll get the benefit of seeing all the action without the annoyance of slow-moving strollers impeding her path.

I daresay Mama could enjoy a beverage at Stubborn Goat or an ice cream without putting herself in mortal peril.

I am curious about how well the walkway will or will not work.

My thoughts:
- They have spent substantial coin on it so far - therefore it would take a convincing case against for it to not happen at this point.

- I am wondering how they will deal with the rise and fall of the tides in terms of the changing grades at entrance and exit of the walkway relative to existing.

- My experience during a busy summer weekend at the old 'bottleneck' was that it became pretty crowded and slow - to the point that I would usually walk around through the parking lot to avoid the congestion, an option that will no longer be available. Also, the wharf at Murphy's isn't all that wide and has no rail. I'm wondering how they will deal with these high-traffic conditions.

- As mentioned, more severe wind/wave conditions will provide additional challenges.

Have any details been made available to the public?

I can think of a couple situations when the floating boardwalk should be closed such as during rough waters, and at night when few people are around to help someone who might fall into the water (I am sure there are other reasons). However, there will only be two entrances so it seems like it should be easy to put up warning signs and physical barriers to close it as required.

If there's a hurricane or something they'll close it down. Seems like a non-issue, and it should offer a nice view. If I'm in town when it's set up I'll report back if I survive. I survived the library stairs somehow. Luck must be on my side. ;)

I'm actually quite looking forward to it. I think issues such as grade changes should be easily dealt with using a longer ramp. It won't be busy during inclement weather anyhow and would be closed during severe weather, just like anything else. As mentioned I find problem-solving to be an interesting process and would like to know the details involved.

The pedestrian traffic during busy times is the only real negative that I can forsee, but remember it is only temporary until Queen's Marque is finished. :2cents:

The Coast Guard is the regulating authority and I am sure they have already covered off all the issues I mentioned. One or two people have to sign off on the structure and they will make sure it is as risk-free as possible, nobody wants an accident investigation.
Plan for the worst and hope for the best. It is a long time since I read the transcript of a marine investigation, an accident that resulted in loss of life and ruined the lives of several people who were at fault. Didn't help that two people decided to lie under examination and then were torn to shreds when their evidence was thoroughly demolished by inquiry counsel.

One would think that the design proposal would have been signed off by all regulating authorities before $800,000 was allowed to be spent on it.

At this point the main risks would be a design flaw (engineer's responsibility), an improper installation (inspector's/contractor's responsibility), improper management during severe conditions (city's responsibility), or unforeseen circumstances - which would depend on the nature of the circumstances and how they are reacted to.

I'm thinking that an alternate route should be provided, even if that route only includes temporary sidewalk access protected by concrete barriers or a couple of priority crosswalks on Lower Water that provide access to the sidewalk by the Dominion Public Bldg - it would make a mess of traffic, but so be it - that's the price of construction. Right now it's a mess for pedestrians having to basically detour to Bedford Row.

The road train will help, but I don't think it will have the capacity to really make a difference volume-wise. It should be a good thing for those with mobility challenges, though.

I think it would be terrible if someone fell into the water, but it would be especially bad if a hurricane came up and someone123 fell in. :haha:

Perhaps HRM Council can hold a meeting on it during a hurricane, which could turn a negative into a positive. :drowning: