Army Corps recommends replacing Cape Cod Canal bridges |

Army Corps recommends replacing Cape Cod Canal bridges

Associated Press
A police officer patrols as pedestrians walk along the Cape Cod Canal beneath the Sagamore bridge in Bourne, Mass. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a draft report Thursday, recommending replacement of the Sagamore bridge and the nearby Bourne bridge, instead of rehabbing them.

CONCORD, Mass. — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recommended replacing the two narrow and often backed-up bridges that carry traffic across the Cape Cod Canal.

The Corps oversees the Bourne and Sagamore bridges. It issued a draft report Thursday following a study that weighed the advantages of rehabbing the nearly 85-year-old bridges versus replacing them entirely.

The Corps determined that replacing them would be more cost effective than paying $1.5 billion to rehabilitate them.

The report recommends replacing the four-lane bridges with wider four-lane structures that include auxiliary acceleration-deceleration lanes, and bike and pedestrian access.

The bridges are often choked with traffic, especially during the summer tourist season. Construction of new bridges in roughly the same location could start as early as 2025.

The Corps has scheduled five public meetings this month to discuss the proposal.

Categories: World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.