montréal Échangeur Turcot

[wellz]

And once again, taxpayers get stiffed. Did this bridge really need to be this extravagant?? Could've saved money in that area!

[nephersir7]

à l’instant, wellz a dit :

And once again, taxpayers get stiffed. Did this bridge really need to be this extravagant?? Could've saved money in that area!

The extra costs to the taxpayers have to do with moving the sewer, not the bridge design.

[lma13]

2 minutes ago, wellz said:

And once again, taxpayers get stiffed. Did this bridge really need to be this extravagant?? Could've saved money in that area!

If you read the article its not the bridge's design that caused the costs to go up.

[wellz]

Just now, lma13 said:

If you read the article its not the bridge's design that caused the costs to go up.

If you read my post, I did not blame the design of the bridge. I pointed out that cost savings could've been made with a more simple design!

[lma13]

Cost savings is in better management, planning, control and engineering to avoid and minimize changes and unforseen events like this. 

[wellz]

6 minutes ago, nephersir7 said:

The extra costs to the taxpayers have to do with moving the sewer, not the bridge design.

Do I have to speak in french or Quebecois on this forum to get people to understand my comments??? Ce que jai dit simplement c'est que le cout global de cette projet du pont St-Jacques aurai pu etre moin couteux avec un design moin extravagante. Je ne blame pas le design sur les couts extra publier aujourdhui!

[Rocco]

Just now, wellz said:

Do I have to speak in french or Quebecois on this forum to get people to understand my comments??? Ce que jai dit simplement c'est que le cout global de cette projet du pont St-Jacques aurai pu etre moin couteux avec un design moin extravagante. Je ne blame pas le design sur les couts extra publier aujourdhui!

Why would the cost be less with a less extravagant design? Costs overrun here had nothing to do with the design.

[wellz]

3 minutes ago, Rocco said:

Why would the cost be less with a less extravagant design? Costs overrun here had nothing to do with the design.

I understand this. But did this bridge really need a tower with cables other then for aesthetic reasons?? I'm sure the public would've been pleased with a simple functional bridge. 

[mattrga]

il y a 12 minutes, wellz a dit :

I understand this. But did this bridge really need a tower with cables other then for aesthetic reasons?? I'm sure the public would've been pleased with a simple functional bridge. 

The least expensive option was to build a suspension bridge.  Because of the size and depth of the span, and the complexity of the geography (the collector sewer and multiple spans of highway below), there was no "simple functional bridge" option.

The alternative would have been some creative engineering like the old bridge, which was complex to construct and impossible to maintain. The old bridge looked like this:

It was also ugly (in my opinion, though I understand some people appreciated it). The only aesthetic addition to the suspension brirge was to add about 10m to the top of the spire, a decision I support 100%.

[nephersir7]

il y a 26 minutes, wellz a dit :

But did this bridge really need a tower with cables other then for aesthetic reasons??

Probably not. Just like the Bonaventure project didn't really need the Jaume Plensa sculpture other than for aesthetic reasons. In both cases it's just a fraction of the project price tag. Didn't really add complexity to the project.