🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1995Nov7.012924.1507@instep.bc.ca>, brad@instep.bc.ca writes:

> Don't let the government fool us into thinking that a tunnel is a logical
> alternative since the Lion's Gate will become the cycling/pedestrian
> crossing. Future governments will not justify the up-keep of an old
> bridge (painting, welding, etc) for the sake of this small percentage of
> users.

Ack!  It was Blue Box day today, and last week's newspapers are gone!

However, my recollection of this plan is that the existing bridge will be
preserved for (a) pedestrians (b) cyclists (who might even finally be
allowed to use the roadway!  What a precedent!) (c) some public transit (to
and from Stanley Park), (d) emergency vehicle access, and (e)
heritage/tourism/scenic reasons.

Even if (a), (b) and (c) combined were not enough to guarantee maintenance
of the bridge, I think that (d) and (e) would be sufficient to do so.

--
I've all my wisdom teeth                    |Crash Test Dummies
  Two up top, two beneath                   |"Bereft Man's Song"
And yet I'll recognize                      |
  My mouth says things that aren't so wise  |richard@mindlink.bc.ca