Yesterday the news became public that the replacement of the historic and beloved Stuyvesant Falls Bridge would cost $11.2 million--more than twice what the county originally estimated it would cost ($5.1 million). Tiffany Greenwaldt-Simon reports on the situation in the Register-Star: "Stuyvesant bridge replacement plan costs more than double."
Historic Stuyvesant reacted by renewing their call for rehabilitating the bridge rather than replacing it. The following is quoted from an email blast from Historic Stuyvesant:
REHABILITATION IS CHEAPER THAN REPLACEMENT.
According to the county, REHABILITATION OF OUR EXISTING BRIDGE IS ESTIMATED TO COST BETWEEN $6 AND $8.5 MILLION (versus $11.2 million minimum for replacement).
The county's $6.1 MILLION INCREASE "error" could be described as:
- A deliberate effort to mislead the public during the legally mandated public consultation process.
- Evidence of a gross lack of care and due diligence by the county and their consultant team.
OR BOTH.
The burden rests on the County to prove that there is no other "PRUDENT AND FEASIBLE" alternative to demolition of the federally protected bridge.
The county's latest submission continues to rely on a flimsy justification for demolition and replacement of the bridge in lieu of rehabilitation. Many of the same flaws with their proposal remain, including: a patently misleading comparison of design alternatives, a lack of transparency regarding their cost assumptions, and inadequate information regarding traffic volumes.
REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE REMAINS A SAFE, REASONABLE, AND COST-EFFECTIVE PATH TOWARD MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
To learn more about and to support the effort to save the Stuyvesant Falls Bridge, visit the Historic Stuyvesant website.
We can rest assured that the good 'ol boys in the county will choose the wrong course. ~ PJ
ReplyDeleteThe obvious answer is to rehabilitate the bridge, a beautiful structure in an astoundingly beautiful location. The bridge enhances the view. This is not a main crossing with a huge amount of traffic.
ReplyDeleteThe replacement idea is just another wasteful boondoggle.
As someone who is a steward of a 200 yr. old Palatine house, repair and restoration cost quotes always, repeat, always run over the projection. This must be factored in. The proposed replacement is a run of the mill low budget design that will need remediation before long. The historic bridge is repairable and can be strengthened for emergency needs. The Columbia County good ole boys could use some remediation of their own.
ReplyDelete