Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
The only thing that is going to improve navigation is if they replace the bridge with a tunnel. There's no way the rail lines in the area can be rebuilt with the kinds of grades needed for a bridge with a clearance like the Patullo or Skybridge. Don't forget that there are no less than two lines that feed into the bridge on the north side and three on the south. Heck, even a tunnel seems unlikely in the current location.
|
I did say replace, not copy identically but newer. A tunnel would be ideal, hence why I think spending more than the $400 million is needed. Which is why I think it is a waste of so much money and effort to move the track when something else is needed much more urgently.
A bridge is possible though, there is a lot of real estate on both sides for a long run up to keep grades low. And I don't think a bridge would need to be full height. Even just a few meters taller would allow the larger tugs and barges under it and it could be built with a wider draw/lift span to make it safer. And if it were double tracked, more trains could get through while the bridge was down.
I just think it is one of the most underrated and important pieces of infrastructure in Western Canada, and probably THE deciding factor on how many trains we can move through our ports. Even a moderate earthquake will probably sink that bridge. And I can't imagine what would happen to our economy if we were to rely on the Mission bridge as the only way across the river for trains for an extended period of time.
Threaded Mode