Civic pride can be a good investment. The Golden Gate Bridge has brought in a lot of money, simply because it is beautiful. A clever combination of beauty and value is the ultimate goal.
The Sundial Bridge in Redding is a good example:
Posted on 12/10/2004 7:37:09 AM PST by SmithL
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is expected to scrap the costly signature design for the Bay Bridge's new eastern span and will instead recommend building a simple skyway, sources close to the negotiations said Thursday.
The shift away from a single-tower suspension span to a viaduct, similar in concept to the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges, is expected to be announced today at a press conference in San Francisco, sources in state and local government said on condition they not be identified.
The decision to go with a skyway brings the state all the way back to the original design for the eastern span proposed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson in 1997. At the time, Bay Area leaders rejected it as unworthy of the region's splendor.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Governor picks simpler Bay Bridge plan Stylish design to be abandoned in favor of skyway in response to mushrooming costs
Well, thank god. Common sense prevails. The egos of the local politicians has caused unbelievable delays and escalating costs. "Signature" bridge. What horse manure. We need a new bridge so that when the next earthquake hits, it won't fall into the bay and kill thousands of people. But no, we have to have a PRETTY bridge! What morons.
I just love over-the-top comparisons.
Good Grief - Is this STILL going on....Reason 485 for leaving the Bay Area.
If you've ever driven out of Hong Kong to the Airport or Taken the Ferry from Hong Kong to Macau or the Mainland, you've seen those Single Pillar bridges. Very nice, interesting design, large openings for many ships.
Contrasted to such atrocities as the Pulaski Skyway(Newark NJ) or something equally aweful like the Goethals Bridge(NJ to Staten Island), you'd be inclined to agree with the Chernobyl description.
That said, with the state of the state in CA, they should build it out of cheapest possible materials, appearance be damned.
They still haven't finished painting the Golden Gate Bridge!
Civic pride can be a good investment. The Golden Gate Bridge has brought in a lot of money, simply because it is beautiful. A clever combination of beauty and value is the ultimate goal.
The Sundial Bridge in Redding is a good example:
"They still haven't finished painting the Golden Gate Bridge!"
I'm told that they never actually "finish" painting the Golden Gate Bridge because it's a continuous process. It always needs new paint somewhere along its extensive structure.
So they've already poured all the foundations and actually built up columns on them. Does these mean they need to tear all of that out? It's already taken about 3 years to put them in.
You make a good point, but it is sooooo frustrating that this bridge isn't finished yet, and who knows when it will be? The cost estimates keep changing, and there is talk of raising the tolls yet AGAIN to pay for the new bay bridge. Tolls are already $3. The earthquake that knocked down a piece of the Bay Bridge was in 1989, and the politicians are still arguing over the design of the new bridge. I just want to knock their heads together and kick their sorry butts.
And the signature orange paint is a thing of the past as well. It contained lead and other materials that are now deemed environmental hazards. They have been trying to get a new formulation for years, but they have had no success. The next time the Golden Gate gets painted it may end up going grey.
Valid complaints, every one.
The big problem is that much of the brige toll doesn't fund the bridge; it subsidizes mass transit. Nix that. If mass transit is such a benefit, let it pay for itself instead of enriching local developers and contractors.
Let's say the price of a fancy bridge was going to be $5 a trip. People should be given a choice between a $3 bridge and a $5 bridge, with the attending considerations presented clearly. If they want the expensive bridge, that's it.
All the costs should be paid out of tolls. In NO case should the State be involved at all except to arrange the financing for the amount necessary to build a minimialist bridge on the grounds of earthquake repair. Anything beyond that benefits the Bay Area alone and should be funded locally.
ROCFLMAO!
Originally budgeted at $2.3 million (1.4 million in federal funds) with a cap of 3.1 million on total expenditures, the cost swelled to $14 million BEFORE ground breaking. Final costs are estimated at $23 million for the PEDESTRIAN bridge. Estimated taxpayer subsidy for each PEDESTRIAN crossing is about $20 dollars. Of course, it is billed as a FREE crossing.
Willie Green alert!
While I agree that the sundial bridge should have been sold at cost, I have no doubt that it was made more expensive not for the cost of the bridge, but to fund a group of enviro-thugs who saw blood in the water. I also don't doubt that it will return far more than its cost over its lifetime.
The real problem here is quantifying positive externalities associated with the benefits from a "pretty bridge" to determine if they are worth the money. They are real, accrue non-uniformly, and are hard to measure. The users of the bridge aren't only those who cross it. Tourism does produce real jobs, even for those who never walk across. As Redding grows, $20 million could be a very good deal.
How. The park is running a deficit that is covered by taxpayer money in addition to the $23 million for the bridge and who knows what other "contributions" by the taxpayers.
It pissed me off that I had to get a Volkwagen instead of a Porsche. I'm going to sue someone for emotional distress. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.