Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon
It's a chicken and egg problem, and a bit of a silly point.
The marginal cost of having a bikeway in the tunnel is likely not that large. There likely needs to be a an emergency exit path that's not a roadway. Fire code and exiting requirements and considerably stricter than they used to be when the original tunnel was built.
Ventilation requirements are also likely stricter than previously. There may need to be ventilation openings in the tunnel cross section as well, for things like forced air or exhaust ventilation. If they don't need to be the full height of the box, then there's likely space for a pedestrian/bike sized opening.
For the demand side, if you prohibit a type of user then you have no idea if there was latent demand. Massey is one of the only crossings around that doesn't have a sidewalk, and is in ideal terrain for cyclists. I've on various occasions crossed most of the regional bridges by bike, and I'm hardly a hardcore cyclist. If it was an option to cycle to the ferry without a huge detour I might go for it.
This is like people complaining that there was no demand for a product that hasn't existed previously. Right now, only the dumbest of users would try to cross it on a bike or scooter, but it still has happened. There's probably some demand there.
|
But wasn't the MUP on one side of the crossing as a proposal earlier on in the project discussion? So there was no "requirement" for a central emergency exit. There would just be standard cross-tunnel with walkways in case of emergencies.
It's peanuts in terms of the budget but I wouldn't try to blanket it over as a "reuse" of a required emeregency tunnel. (Sure if you had two gas tanker fires in both tunnels at the same time this option is better).
https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/app/uploa...x-h-crossing-costing-report-redacted.pdf
I just want to know who is going to be stupid enough to walk the tunnel with e-bikes coming by them at 60km/h.
Threaded Mode