The tunnel vs. bridge debate, in Fort Lauderdale and beyond, is missing the forest for the trees both in a regional sense and in a long-term planning sense.
The entire cost of the Broward County Premium Mobility Plan (PREMO) is $4.3 billion, with the county expected to pay 25% and the rest covered by the state and federal governments. A tunnel would exhaust most of the entire budget, and the rest of PREMO would never happen.
I live in Plantation and would like to go downtown by transit, as a tunnel would make me another car in downtown. Long-term, if we want more frequency and faster speeds on that rail, we need to grade-separate all of it. Tunneling for 70 miles is impossible; we need to elevate it.
Think of a bridge over the New River as the first part of the Florida East Coast Railway (FECR) being elevated to provide better service.
Elevated rail isn’t bad. Look at cities worldwide with elevated rail systems that weren’t destroyed by it. We often vacation there.
Maximiliano Goldstein, Plantation
As my contribution to Fort Lauderdale’s great New River Crossing tunnel vs. bridge debate, I strongly favor a bridge, for the very reason that many don’t. It would be conspicuous.
The tunnel would be out of sight and likely out of mind for many potential customers. In contrast, trains passing overhead several times every hour would constitute a brilliant reminder to everyone that there’s a safer, quieter, more relaxing and more environmentally-friendly alternative to driving.
Thomas DeMarco, Plantation
A tunnel is exorbitantly expensive to construct. If a project consultant advises it could cost $3 billion, and it would take maybe 10 years to be finalized, we can then assume it will cost $5 billion and will be finished in 15 years.
I have learned over the years in Fort Lauderdale that mayors and commissioners love gargantuan projects (like the Wave), which are expensive, problematic and would be finished long after they have ceased working for the city.
Ursula Thime, Fort Lauderdale
If the difficulty crossing the New River is the trains, move the tracks. Without a train crossing, the cost of a tunnel or bridge would be reduced. Relocating the bulk of train traffic will serve businesses and the community. It’s long past time for through trains to take a more circuitous route around the city rather that right through it.
Granted, this is easy to say and difficult to accomplish, given politics and land ownership. But it’s the long-term solution.
Continued freight rail access to east or west businesses without a river crossing would come from spurs on either side of the loop, reducing train traffic, which will reduce interruptions to the community. While it adds distance, it also adds uninterrupted speed and safety.
Current Tri-Rail and Brightline crossings can remain with a refurbished bridge and a less frequent schedule. Removing tracks from neighborhoods is a welcome step. The land that would be recovered from the existing right of way would be prime and its sale would help fund the project. We’ve outgrown the 1950’s location of train tracks. The resistance will be fierce, but a practical a solution should preempt that. As other cities have found, moving tracks is inevitable, and it’s cheaper to do it now.
Richard Sackett, Fort Lauderdale
Thank you for the truthful and insightful op-ed piece by Alan Levine and Donna Nevel (“Violence will beget violence until Palestinians have freedom and self-determination,” Nov. 6).
It’s about time that the mainstream media allowed space for truth-telling. We, your readers, invite more. Free Palestine!
Amanda Rose, Miami
