Politics, News & Issues >
US News
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould management of bridges and tunnels be left to private business or local government?
Results so far:
| Private | 30% | 74 votes | Total: 250 votes | |
| Govt. | 70% | 176 votes |
Private
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe history of local government managing bridges and tunnels have been a disaster. The same can apply to the Federal Government managing the Interstate System in the United States of America. There are examples which justify the need for private management of bridges and tunnels.
The incident of a highway bridge collapse in Minnesota in the year 2007 is proof of the need for private business management. It was reported that the highway bridge was inspected and was certified as OK a few months before its collapse. A Private Business operating the bridge would have inspected the bridge and made the necessary maintenance for its customers. Who are the customers? The people who are using the bridge.
One classic example of mismanagement of a bridge by a city occurred in the City of Akron, Ohio during the 1960s and 1970s. Before the construction of a Y Bridge which connected the North Hill Section of Akron with the rest of the city, there was a North Hill Viaduct. The North Hill Viaduct was a sturdy and supposedly stable bridge which was supposed to have been maintained by the City of Akron with time. It was between two hills and without the viaduct, there was a wide range that separated the two hills.
What happened was that pieces of the North Hill Viaduct started to fall with chips going from the bridge and to the residential areas below. It started to become a serious problem to the point that whole cars could have fallen through the bridge. The City of Akron, Ohio did nothing to sustain the bridge and only made minor repairs. The minor repairs were the equivalent of a Physician and a Nurse applying a Bandage to a Gangrenous Leg.
The end result was that in the last 1970's, the North Hill Viaduct was torn down and eventually replaced by a Y Bridge which is supposedly being sustained by the City of Akron, Ohio. The Y Bridge was dedicated in 1981 after an almost two year and a half year wait with traffic being detoured to other areas. This unfortunate event could have been avoided with private business [whose incentive is to please the customer] maintaining the North Hill Viaduct or its successor bridge instead of the benign neglect of the City of Akron, Ohio.
While there are people who are in favour of government intervention in all spheres of life, excess government intervention especially in public transportation should not mean that the benevolent state will take care of the roads, bridges, and tunnels. It is when private businesses take care of such public transportation that people are safer.
Learn more about this author, Roberto Alvarez-Galloso.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Govt.
Bridges and tunnels should never be left to private companies to manage. There would always be the danger that cost-cutting would mean less inspection, less inspection could be disastrous. It's not that private companies are not trustworthy, most are, it's just that there must be regulations concerning the care of these potential hazardous byways. Even one left unchecked is too much.
The government, when all is said and done, is the only concern that is capable of regulating such vast systems. It has been shown, if one cares to look, that a business is designed to earn money, and if it does not earn money it cannot stay in business. What if the private business that sees over the bridges and tunnels decides to cut back on operating expenses to save money? Would some repairs that are needed get delayed? Possibly.
The government needs money too, but it can earn money in other ways other than risking the life of those going through the tunnels and over the bridges. It can, as it usually does, raise the taxes, put a toll on the bridges. (I heard a TV comments a few days ago that toll bridges were usually well kept bridges. If this is so, then put the tolls back on bridges.
(An added note) Now that we are in a recession, or near it, and momey is being handed out right and left to give the economy a boost, it is hoped that some of the money the government will be spending will be to check and regulate the older bridges that may need an overhauling. Not to do this is too risky. Most of the bridges and tunnels were put in place years ago and are much in need of being kept repaired. The same way with old and crumbling cities. Nothing man-made lasts forever and instead of wasting money on creating needless new buildings and bridges, the most economical way would be to keep those still usable in good shape.
When a bridge goes down and lives are lost, usually then stricter regulations are put into place to prevent others such accidents. Why not regulate their inspection so closely that problem areas, loose nuts and bolts and whatever else is keeping these thoroughfares safe for navigating, will be found out long before the structure gives away. I remember well when the Silver Bridge that spanned Point Pleasant WV and Marietta Ohio went done during a five oclock rush hour. I never drive across a bridge that I don't think of that horrible accident and say a brief prayer for the victims and that accidents like this will never happen again. That tragedy happened in the later latter part of the sixties.
Learn more about this author, EMoore.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US News
- Do you believe the 17 pregnant teenagers in Gloucester, Massachusetts made a "pregnancy pact"?
- Should the US war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay be held while we're at war?
- Will President Obama be able to convince lawmakers to compromise on health care legislation when he appears before Congress?
- Was the U.S. House correct in rejecting the $700 billion economic rescue plan?
- Are amusement park rides safe?
- Should the Writer's Guild of America have voted to go on strike?
