There was a life-cost analysis performed on behalf of Public Works, which was delivered in 2018. It presents certain options for either maintaining the bridge or replacing it with what you would call an iconic signature bridge or a run-of-the-mill steel bridge. What's interesting is that this study concluded that having a signature bridge would still be more costly in any hypothesis than would be maintaining the current bridge. This fact has puzzled the coalition. What's the rationale for going ahead when you know the difference in costs are not clear and the economic advantage is not clear?
To add to that just one more thing, that study called for further studies of heritage and those studies were not done before a decision was made.