Building and Burning Bridges to Nowhere

[XLFD]

The debate over whether the Washington Avenue Bridge should be repaired and/or replaced is not new as we looked at the near history and questioned the idea back in March 2011, made further analysis in Bridging the gap in 2011 looked at the strange choices of contractors in engineering corruption and looked at the  process of choosing engineering bids. 

 

But I was singularly impressed with a Reader's Forum piece in the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) on May 20th which made some very good points.  As I have stated before, this is typically the only part of the newspaper which has reasonable editorial opinion of the local population, bereft of the usual self-interests and political favoritism espoused by the COLDNews editorial board.

 

 

But after reading this, I did want to check the facts, and understand more the reader's viewpoint.  Michael Wadel runs a local construction company, and hence may be miffed by being overlooked by local agencies for local projects, as they seem to do on a regular basis even when the local product is much cheaper (as seen in the "engineering corruption" thread, and in "Duct Tales").  But if this is the case, I don't see any evidence of 'sour grapes' in the record, or in the written piece; it stands alone without using hyperbole.

 

And he is fairly accurate  about the record of the Washington Avenue Bridge.  I wouldn't be too surprised if he was paying attention to the controversy way back then.  The public record is fairly sketchy concerning open discussions before late 1966 (let us not forget that the Open Meetings Act wasn't passed until 1976, and so public meetings were more of a protocol back then), so this 11-30 1966 Bridge Report made by the City's street and sewer committee appears as the first concise record about the project brought to the public's attention. 

 

It notes at the bottom of page 1 that:  "Several people have suggested to the commission the possibility of removing the bridge and rebuilding Madison to standards capable of handling State Highway loadings."   They then list three reasons why they feel this would be an error, something our current administration hasn't even bothered to take the time to do.  You will note that the reasons given are a lot less applicable nowadays or inapplicable, as noted by Mike Wadel in his piece. 

 

On May 1, 1967, the City gave a notice of intent to issue $250K in bonds, then on May 26, 1967 the City opened construction bids.  June 1967 saw the council very active; on the fifth they passed this resolution:

 

And on the sixteenth, they officially issued the bonds starting with this preamble and contained fully in this link:  1967 6-16 Bridge $250,000 bonding.

 

Our nation and state are currently swimming in debt, and while I would dare say they need $2 million more than our local community does, I can safely say there would be a lot of other projects that could be done around Ludington that would actually make a difference to our transportation infrastructure with those two gigabucks.  And let's not forget, the local costs now are roughly half of a million, which is twice what the bridge cost in 1967. 

 

As Mr. Wadel notes, the areas affected are no longer the bustling business and industrial community they once were back in the days.  Why not invest a small amount to develop the expanse of shoreline that would be available if the bridge came down for good, rather than this large amount on a fool's errand that will need to be revisited in another 40 years?

[Marty Redman]

Sorry Mister Wadel this bridge is going to be put there whether theres a use for it or not.  Just one more government project in a long list that doesn't make sense and doesn't get any review. 

[XLFD]

You are correct Marty; the signs are going up and the project looks to be starting next week.  Whereas, I have heard several people comment on how wasteful this project is, citing some of what Michael Wadel writes and other reasons, this $2.5 million bridge will go up without any solid stated reason of why it needs to be there given by the officials who voted for it.  The reasons of 1967 do not carry weight in 2013.

[Willy]

 Mr Wadel is correct. This should be put to a vote by the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

[XLFD]

So that the taxpayers can botch things up again like they did with the "Committee for a Stronger Ludington's" proposal last fall?  LOL.  

Many mistake Ludington's government officials as representatives of the people, until they see what they do in the name of the people.  Few people I know want either the historic district, the west end project, or the bridge to nowhere upgrade, but this place is far from a democracy.