Letter: Building bridges that last

For the Monitor

Monday, January 7, 2013

Email
Print
Comments (3)

Official: Remove, replace the Sewalls Falls Bridge (Monitor front page, Jan. 4):

City Engineer Ed Roberge recommends taking out the Sewalls Falls Bridge (which I agree with) and replacing it with a bridge that (per Phil Donovan of the heritage commission) “100 years from now will be looked at the same way we look at this bridge.”

Have either of these gentlemen looked at any of the bridges built by the state in the past 20-30 years? A lot of these are on the “watch” list and won’t make it to 50 years, much less 100 years. Perhaps a return to the old-style techniques and designs combined with newer materials available would make it feasible for a bridge to last 100 years. I am sure there are better protective coatings available than the cheap paint now being used to protect the steel .The state is being penny-wise but pound foolish in its coatings. Better maintenance wouldn’t hurt either.

TOM GENO

Canterbury

Share:
Email
Print
Comments (3)

Comments 3

ItsaRepublic wrote:

07/01/2013

I just don't see the replacement of this bridge as a priority in a failed economy. We need to STOP spending.

Christopher_Booth wrote:

09/01/2013

How is stopping spending going to help the economy? While replacing this bridge may not be very important right now, we certainly need to get our economy going, and that means spending. The state can not run a deficit, but the federal government needs to continue spending until we recover. Infrastructure jobs are a great way to get the economy going.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

12/01/2013

If we stop government spending and waste, we reduce taxes. If we reduce taxes people have more discretionary spending. They spend and that creates jobs because employers, real employers who create things have to ramp up production. Infrastructure jobs are jobs that recirculate the same money. Like Nancy Pelosi saying that welfare payments stimulate the economy.