Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mkt853 t1_j8nicxc wrote

Why don't they just make a new bridge if it's that old like they did with the Baldwin and Q?

1

Prestigious_Bobcat29 t1_j8nl0b3 wrote

I can’t speak for federal DOT, but I’m sure alternatives were studied and this was deemed the best solution. Could be sub base/coast guard related, could have just been prohibitively expensive. Could have been too difficult to work around all the rail infrastructure surrounding the bridge

1

Backpacker7385 t1_j8nqujz wrote

This is a big part of the answer. Maintaining the Thames River with a navigable channel for submarines is the number one priority, as the Groton Sub Base is the single most important sub base in the Navy’s arsenal. That factor throws a major wrench into building a new bridge.

3

Popular_Bid_3343 t1_j8ojejx wrote

Out of curiosity, is the Groton Sub Base really the most important base? Why?

1

Backpacker7385 t1_j8ojuxe wrote

Location. It doesn’t make sense looking at a flat map, but if you look at a globe and realize that subs can go under the polar ice cap it becomes much more clear. It’s faster to get a submarine to coastal Russian waters from Groton than from San Diego.

1

paintball6818 t1_j8nqool wrote

The Baldwin bridge didn’t have adequate capacity so it was decided to build new. Q bridge also didn’t have adequate capacity and had giant holes in the footings so rehab wasn’t an option. Goldstar bridge has the capacity so they chose the cheaper option to rehab it.

1