snogger
Footballguy
Fixing is the cheapest, but it still costs money for analysis and design. But you can only fix them so much. Bridges that are over 100 years old eventually need to be replaced. Bridges weren't designed to last 100 years. They also become obsolete due to increasing traffic volumes.Fixing bridges does not require any of that. We should have a system where we rate projects by a variety of criteria (need, costs. benefit) and do the ones which makes the most sense. Of course setting up a committee which is void of political cronyism is probably an impossible task.The thing is, it takes years to become "shovel ready". And it costs millions just to get to "shovel ready" when you add up design, permits & Right of Way acquisition.Let's just wait until the next financial crisis so we can just fund a bunch of shovel-ready projects whether they make sense or not.
And that's only considering bridges. The story didn't even mention drainage and utilities.

They've decided that fixing it would only be a temporary solution as the bridge would need to be replaced in 10 years any ways.. So until they come up with the money to replace the bridge, we get to drive over it each day hoping that staying in the middle is good enough

Last edited by a moderator: