🚀 go-pugleaf

doug@zadall.com (Doug Chinnery) wrote:
>In article <1995Nov7.012924.1507@instep.bc.ca>,  <brad@instep.bc.ca> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Ya gotta figure that upkeep on the bridge would be minimal if there
>was only bikes, peds, and skaters on it.  It would be a really
>unpopular decision to tear it down, to boot.
>-- 
>Doug Chinnery          doug@zadall.com       dtc@wimsey.com
>"Sure I'll have another drink with you, though I'm already drunk as
>a bottle" - The Jesus Lizard

The ministry's own figures show it would cost something like $6 million to
tear down the bridge (not 100% sure on that one) and $8 million to retain
it for ped/bike use, plus approx $100K per year for maintenance.

As for the twin tunnels - I hope one of them is for a rail line...
(I seriously doubt this, of course, but that's just because it would make
a lot of sense and would be in keeping with all the sentiments expressed
by the GVRD and all those other politicians who claim to be interested in
the environment and urban livability issues.)

--
James Strickland    Insert witticism here.
james@portal.ca     <--- note new address