Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerHaight
I guess it all depends on cost? One construction project is typically cheaper than two separate projects, so if the IWMB needs to be replaced anyways you may as well address that and the transit crossing at the same time. But if the government could build the transit connection separately and put off the IWMB replacement and associated capital outlays for an additional 15 or 20 years that may be attractive, especially if you're only looking at a minimal increase in costs (say 10 or 20 percent extra for two projects compared to one).
In terms of timeline, I think only the planning of the North Shore line was within the scope of Translink's 10-year priorities? So if Translink is not ready to build the line until the early/mid 2030s and Migrant is right about the 25 years of remaining useful life, the IWMB will only have 10 or 15 years left when the transit project is ready to start so you might as well replace it at the same time...
|
My bad, it’s actually
45 years (as of 2021). So fast-forward two years and another decade, and there’s still ~33 years left to go – throwing away
that bridge for the sake of one SkyTrain isn’t as easy a decision as 10-15 years.
The Port Mann, George Massey, Golden Ears et al are each supposed to be compatible with train service, but that never actually happens. Perhaps there’s advantages to having one bridge for traffic and another bridge for trains?
Threaded Mode