Quote:
Originally Posted by artvandelay
If a bridge results in $500 million in savings over the tunnel option, it's the obvious choice.
|
Fully agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster
I think one of the major challenges with the bridge is how it tunnels once in downtown. Could be a big disruption to a street and neighbouring properties.
|
True, but if it is going to be a bridge, it should be a more efficient elevated line, so the point is moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
Are you serious?!? I can't imagine a tunnel under the Bow costing more than half that much; maybe even half of that. It's definitely not the cost of a bridge, the two tunnel egresses and, 500 million!!!
|
Yes it would cost that much, especially when you consider how much extra length of tunneling it would require on the north side of the river if you sunk the train so deep. That means the incremental cost of tunneling below the Bow River is not just limited to the tunnels under the river. This has been extremely well documented. Surprised you are surprised.
Threaded Mode