Passenger Trains > Norwalk, CT bridge replacement

The 7/10/19 USA Today mentions that federal and state transportation officials will move forward with a $1.1 Billion replacement of a (Metro North ex-NH) railroad bridge in Norwalk.  The article notes that the bridge is 122 years old.

http://www.walkbridgect.com/projects/norwalk.aspx

It would probably cost a lot less to relocate whatever upstream commercial interest is still using waterborne transportation and then replace the bridge as a fixed span instead of a drawbridge.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would probably cost a lot less to relocate...


Except that whether there are any businesses located upstream has little bearing on designation as a navigable waterway.

Highspeed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It would probably cost a lot less to
> relocate...
>
>
> Except that whether there are any businesses
> located upstream has little bearing on designation
> as a navigable waterway.

If someone once designated the Norwalk River a navigable waterway, than presumably their successors could change that designation.  The Charles River in Boston’s Back Bay used to be able to accommodate tall-masted sailing ships, but it no longer can...somehow that change was made.

Dave

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If someone once designated the Norwalk River a
> navigable waterway, than presumably their
> successors could change that designation.  The
> Charles River in Boston’s Back Bay used to be
> able to accommodate tall-masted sailing ships, but
> it no longer can...somehow that change was made.
>
> Dave



But then not as many people would make as much money.

The goal is to make large projects as big and expensive as possible. And to stretch-out the project for as long as possible.

Follow the money.

EXACTLY....:

If you can float a canoe in it, it's "navigable." I don't think whether commercial traffic uses a body of water determines navigability. Patch has a good idea ... that would also make the Portal Draw situation in NJ a lot cheaper to deal with.

Under some interpretations, creeks which eventually drain into navigable waters are themselves navigable waters.

That was an issue in the blasting off the tops of mountains to get at coal dispute.

Posted from Android

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can float a canoe in it, it's "navigable."
> I don't think whether commercial traffic uses a
> body of water determines navigability. Patch has a
> good idea ... that would also make the Portal Draw
> situation in NJ a lot cheaper to deal with.

Of course...but the issue here is the clearance above water level required.  A fixed bridge could accommodate all of us canoe paddlers, but apparently some user(s) want to get larger craft upriver.  I believe there’s a business that gets sand deliveries by barge in Norwalk. 

Dave