🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1mdkejINNcjj@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:

>  Both this possibility and remarks that Lions Gate has to be replaced
>  because of age make me wonder about the quality of the bridge.  So
>  far as I know, nobody is thinking of replacing the Golden Gate
>  Bridge, which is more heavily used and more exposed to salt and
>  ocean weather, nor have I ever heard of it having a load stress
>  problem.  Was Lions Gate built on the cheap, or with lower
>  engineering standards?  Occasional resurfacing, maybe.  Regrets
>  eventually at not building it wide enough, quite likely.  But I
>  can't see why a decently built major bridge's basic structure
>  shouldn't be good for a couple of centuries or so.

The Lions Gate Bridge was built by the Dominion Bridge company to the
requirements placed on it by the governments and private parties involved. 

The life expectancy of the bridge was I believe set to be 50 years, and it
was designed/built with this in mind (probably a silly specification). I am
not sure of the year in which the bridge was built, but I know it is at the
end of - or past - it life expectancy.

This doesn't mean that it is not stable, but given the amount of traffic that 
uses it, I would think that it's not really suitable anymore. 

I think if an unbiased structure was done they would find that most of the
infrastructure is fine, and that what isn't could be upgraded at less cost than
a new bridge. The problem is not so much the degradation of the structure, but 
the usefulness of the structure (IMHO of course).

On the other hand it would make a great "cyclists and pedestrains route" if all
motorized traffic was routed somewhere else.

Rob