Passenger Trains > Group suggests locking down Walk bridge, not replacing it

Conservation group Norwalk Harbor Keeper has filed a lawsuit seeking to force a more complete evaluation of a fixed-bridge alternative for the WALK drawbridge on the MNCR New Haven/Amtrak line in Connecticut.  Citing a suggestion by the CT Office of Policy and Management that reduced river traffic might make it feasible to simply lock the existing bridge in the "down" position, the group asks for re-consideration of a fixed bridge before proceeding with the project.

Article from Mass Transit is here:

Norwalk Harbor Keeper presses ConnDOT to rethink WALK bridge project

Previous TO posting on the WALK bridge replacement, including artist's rendering of the proposed drawbridge, is here:

ConnDOT WALK bridge project

The ConnDOT site linked from the above TO post does include three fixed bridge alternatives (high, medium and low level) that were rejected in favor of the proposed lift bridge, so it's not likely that a re-visit will change the outcome.  But I think CT OPM's suggestion to simply lock down the existing bridge is an interesting one, and one that should be considered for the PORTAL bridge in New Jersey as well.

 

And it's Metro North Railroad, no longer Commuter.

I don't know if the feds apply different rules in CT, but in Florida the rule is 35 feet above the channel's high water mark for bridge clearances.

That allows sailboats and large yachts to pass underneath

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if the feds apply different rules in
> CT, but in Florida the rule is 35 feet above the
> channel's high water mark for bridge clearances.
>
> That allows sailboats and large yachts to pass
> underneath

Not much of a sailboat can fit underneath comfortably at 35'. Mine is 30' length overall--not large by any means--and the mast is 35' above the deck, and that doesn't account for freeboard. I won't attempt any fixed bridge marked at lower than 50' vertical clearance on the charts.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if the feds apply different rules in CT, but in Florida the rule is 35 feet above the channel's high water mark for bridge clearances.

Locking down the WALK bridge, or building the "low level" fixed-bridge alternative, would result in a 20 foot clearance for water traffic.  The CT OPM comment mentioned in the Mass Transit article linked to yesterday used the term "closed to navigation" to describe what would happen to the Norwalk River upstream from the bridge if their suggestion were adopted.