Cape Cod Rail, Bridges and Highways

[ulrichomega]

No it's not. A navigable waterway is a navigable waterway, and building a bridge over it that obstructs marine traffic is just as illegal as filling it in.

Given that drawbridges exist over navigable waterways, I'm going to say that it's far more possible to build a bridge over a canal than it is to fill the canal in. Obviously both filling in the canal and constructing a fixed span are illegal, I literally said as much. But to say that eliminating the entire canal is exactly the same difficulty as building a bridge over it is ludicrous. No marine life impact. No need to source the fill (which is going to have environmental impacts as well given the volume). Boat traffic can still transit. The list of differences in degree is staggering.

Seriously, all I'm saying is that in terms of the political capital it would expend it's easier to sell a lower bridge or drawbridge than it would be to sell filling in the entire canal. Are either easy? No! Obviously not! It's a navigable waterway and those are protected. Literally everyone on this forum knows that. But to pretend there's no difference between the two from a political perspective is ridiculous.

Which do you think is more likely (given the ACOE won't approve anything at all right now): Congress approving a new drawbridge over the canal, or Congress totally eliminating the Canal?

 

[KCasiglio]

Given that drawbridges exist over navigable waterways, I'm going to say that it's far more possible to build a bridge over a canal than it is to fill the canal in. Obviously both filling in the canal and constructing a fixed span are illegal, I literally said as much. But to say that eliminating the entire canal is exactly the same difficulty as building a bridge over it is ludicrous. No marine life impact. No need to source the fill (which is going to have environmental impacts as well given the volume). Boat traffic can still transit. The list of differences in degree is staggering.

Seriously, all I'm saying is that in terms of the political capital it would expend it's easier to sell a lower bridge or drawbridge than it would be to sell filling in the entire canal. Are either easy? No! Obviously not! It's a navigable waterway and those are protected. Literally everyone on this forum knows that. But to pretend there's no difference between the two from a political perspective is ridiculous.

Which do you think is more likely (given the ACOE won't approve anything at all right now): Congress approving a new drawbridge over the canal, or Congress totally eliminating the Canal?

I think you're getting really hung up on "this impractical and entirely unrealistic idea is less impractical and entirely unrealistic than that other idea" which, while objectively true for the reasons you state, is kind of irrelevant since it's also impractical and unrealistic.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Given that drawbridges exist over navigable waterways, I'm going to say that it's far more possible to build a bridge over a canal than it is to fill the canal in. Obviously both filling in the canal and constructing a fixed span are illegal, I literally said as much. But to say that eliminating the entire canal is exactly the same difficulty as building a bridge over it is ludicrous. No marine life impact. No need to source the fill (which is going to have environmental impacts as well given the volume). Boat traffic can still transit. The list of differences in degree is staggering.

Seriously, all I'm saying is that in terms of the political capital it would expend it's easier to sell a lower bridge or drawbridge than it would be to sell filling in the entire canal. Are either easy? No! Obviously not! It's a navigable waterway and those are protected. Literally everyone on this forum knows that. But to pretend there's no difference between the two from a political perspective is ridiculous.

Which do you think is more likely (given the ACOE won't approve anything at all right now): Congress approving a new drawbridge over the canal, or Congress totally eliminating the Canal?

You are really not understanding the priority order of transportation in the United States. Water-based traffic always gets priority over land-based traffic, based on Federal law and long historical prescident. Drawbridges in the locations of the Sagamore and Bourne bridges would be controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. And they would be operated in favor of water traffic at all times. In other words they are going to be open to boats and closed to cars and trucks MOST OF THE TIME. (Just like the Cape Cod Rail Bridge!)

Can you understand why taking days to travel to and from the Cape by car or truck might be a non-starter?

 

[jklo]

And bridge traffic? As Vagabond pointed out this evening, it is an issue nearly year-round, not just tourist season.

It's really not. Doing maintenance during the Other 9 months is perfectly fine.

And WFH, which I see in your posts you frequently diss, is not going away, however much you wish.

Boston's future might depend on you being wrong. Which is what scares me. I still unconvinced WFH will survive the next recession, whenever that ends up coming.

When it comes to retirement, I am getting the impression that Portland (Maine) might be the place people will go those who are able to retire in NE.