Cape Cod Rail, Bridges and Highways

Tallguy said:
It would be pretty cheap to just fill it in.
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious? It cost the state 2.3 billion to build a 4.3 mile surface trolley extension on an existing ROW. The cost to fill in the Cape Cod Canal (17 miles) would be in the multiple, multiple billions of dollars considering the volume of material, labor, equipment, environmental impact, and legal requirements. Not to mention decades of delays due to the need for an act of Congress to allow it, and the ensuing litigation to prevent it.
 
Wonk said:
Not sure if serious? It cost the state 2.3 billion to build a 4.3 mile surface trolley extension on an existing ROW. The cost to fill in the Cape Cod Canal (17 miles) would be in the multiple, multiple billions of dollars considering the volume of material, labor, equipment, environmental impact, and legal requirements. Not to mention decades of delays due to the need for an act of Congress to allow it, and the ensuing litigation to prevent it.
Click to expand...
It's not a serious idea in my opinion, but in theory, it wouldn't be necessary to fill the entire canal. Just build some land bridges on which roads could be built. The body of water would largely remain, though no longer navigable for through passage.
 
Err as I recall the cut for the canal is significantly deeper than where the water level would imply. I could be mistaken since if I'm heading to the cape I usually using the Bourne which does have fairly steep approaches, but at least for the Sagamore I believe the bridge deck is more or less level with ground level on both sides of the canal.
 
If we're considering nuking the Canal altogether, surely just building bridges that aren't hundreds of feet tall is the obvious first step?
 
ulrichomega said:
If we're considering nuking the Canal altogether, surely just building bridges that aren't hundreds of feet tall is the obvious first step?
Click to expand...
You cannot do that as long as it is designated a navigable waterway of the US.

It takes an act of Congress to take a navigable waterway out of service.

For historical reasons, water transport rights supersede all other transportation rights in the US. It is the law.
 
It's also extremely difficult, impossible in many cases, to obtain permission from the US Army Corps to fill in bodies of water, due to impacts to aquatic species and habitat.
 
JeffDowntown said:
You cannot do that as long as it is designated a navigable waterway of the US.

It takes an act of Congress to take a navigable waterway out of service.

For historical reasons, water transport rights supersede all other transportation rights in the US. It is the law.
Click to expand...
I understand, that's why I said the first step is just to build lower bridges, not fill the whole thing in.
 
Don't forget the canals role in forming a part of the intracoastal waterway, and the national defense implications that imparts.
 
JeffDowntown said:
You cannot build low bridges over a navigable waterway -- it is considered impeding the ship traffic.
Click to expand...
Okay, let me make my point clear:

1) Waterways are protected.
2) Filling in waterways is therefore illegal.
3) It is possible to change 2), but only theoretically.
4) Building bridges over waterways is legal.
5) Building low bridges over waterways is illegal.
6) Making 5) legal is way, way easier than making 2) legal.

Given this, why was the proposal to go right to filling in the canals, rather than just proposing the construction of new bridges that are lower than the existing ones?
 
ulrichomega said:
Okay, let me make my point clear:

1) Waterways are protected.
2) Filling in waterways is therefore illegal.
3) It is possible to change 2), but only theoretically.
4) Building bridges over waterways is legal.
5) Building low bridges over waterways is illegal.
6) Making 5) legal is way, way easier than making 2) legal.

Given this, why was the proposal to go right to filling in the canals, rather than just proposing the construction of new bridges that are lower than the existing ones?
Click to expand...
A low bridge would have to be built as either a lift bridge or a draw bridge, resulting in very long traffic backups due to bridge openings. I don't see any benefits that a low bridge would bring, only disbenefits.
 
Charlie_mta said:
A low bridge would have to be built as either a lift bridge or a draw bridge, resulting in very long traffic backups due to bridge openings. I don't see any benefits that a low bridge would bring, only disbenefits.
Click to expand...
And the Army Corp of Engineers would control the lift cycle of the bridge, as they do the Cape Cod Rail Bridge. So expect it to be open for boat traffic more than closed for automobile and truck traffic.

To build 5) above (a low fixed bridge over a navigable waterway), you basically have to do 2) above (get the waterway declared non-navigable). They are the same problem.
 
But, again, all of these are simpler problems to solve than filling in the entire canal, a move that has no tangible benefits over just building a shorter bridge.

Seriously, why do you seem to think I'm actually proposing this? I'm saying that filling in the canal is ridiculous.
 
JeffDowntown said:
And the Army Corp of Engineers would control the lift cycle of the bridge, as they do the Cape Cod Rail Bridge. So expect it to be open for boat traffic more than closed for automobile and truck traffic.

To build 5) above (a low fixed bridge over a navigable waterway), you basically have to do 2) above (get the waterway declared non-navigable). They are the same problem.
Click to expand...
ulrichomega said:
But, again, all of these are simpler problems to solve than filling in the entire canal, a move that has no tangible benefits over just building a shorter bridge.
Click to expand...
I think both of you have a point.

Economically speaking, filling in the entire canal is much costlier than building low bridges (or filling in small parts of the canal), with little more benefits.

But the main challenge in any of the proposals isn't economical, it's political. All three have the same political challenge, which is a prerequisite of any construction. This makes the economical comparisons essentially irrelevant.
 
The Sagamore bridge replacement is already in the design phase and the option chosen was a bridge with an arc similar to the existing bridge. I'd say it's too late to make a change since engineering and approvals must be done by 2026 in order to meet the target construction start date of September 2027.

I'm not sure if options have been made available for the Bourne bridge replacement yet. A lower bridge doesn't seem to offer any advantages as far as I can see.
 
Where would all the fill come from to fill the canal? A couple of mountains would have to be leveled to get that amount of fill material.
I measured the area of the Cape Cod Canal on Google Erath. Assuming a 32 ft. depth of fill to cover this area, there would be 37,952,493 cubic yards of fill needed.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
Where would all the fill come from to fill the canal? A couple of mountains would have to be leveled to get that amount of fill material.
I measured the area of the Cape Cod Canal on Google Erath. Assuming a 32 ft. depth of fill to cover this area, there would be 37,952,493 cubic yards of fill needed.
Click to expand...
Time for a big subway project or fifty
 
ulrichomega said:
Okay, let me make my point clear:

1) Waterways are protected.
2) Filling in waterways is therefore illegal.
3) It is possible to change 2), but only theoretically.
4) Building bridges over waterways is legal.
5) Building low bridges over waterways is illegal.
6) Making 5) legal is way, way easier than making 2) legal.
Click to expand...
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.
And, the canal was built for a reason, which is that navigating around the Cape was dangerous and lots of ships got wrecked. That's still true today, even if there's less commercial traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top