Bridge utility lines also a factor

Reporter Val Rossi provided some good information in her story (Weight of bridge itself, not walkers the issue: city – March 30).

It’s clear that maintaining the old structure is not good value for taxpayer money.  Might as well put that kind of money into building a new structure if a second crossing is desired.

There is much chatter questioning the need for a second crossing as well as the costs.  Some opine that, if a new second crossing is built, it will end up costing much more than $20 million.  While others opine that the “new” bridge is approaching a fifty year anniversary and a second crossing is a good investment for the future of the city.

While taxpayers are deciding, however, the bridge supports are crumbling under the weight of the steel structure.  The “old” bridge was not only used for vehicle and pedestrian transportation, it carries a regional sewer line, water line and gas line across to the other side of the river.

In terms of safety and liability, shouldn’t stakeholders be thinking of rerouting the current regional sewer line, the Fortis gas line and the municipal water line sooner rather than later?  Couldn’t a slight shift rupture any one or all of these lines?  Then what?

Rose Calderon