Salem's Third Bridge planning staggers on to likely demise

If I was a betting man -- and Vegas placed odds on ill-advised city public works projects -- I'd put money on the City of Salem's Third Bridge project going down in well-deserved flames.

I wasn't able to attend last night's City Council hearing on the project. But thanks to a hot-off-the-blog post from Salem Breakfast on Bikes, I got a good feel for the increasing desperation of Third Bridge proponents.

With opposition increasing by the day, it's telling that Public Works director Peter Fernandez now is calling the latest iteration of the bridge/quasi-freeway design, the "Salem Alternative." Sounds like the $100,000 a month planning team is trying to earn its keep.

I'll admit that Salem Alternative has a better ring to it than 4-D, or whatever the heck the previous preferred design was called.

(If they'd called it 44-D, maybe at least the Third Bridge would have gotten a thumbs-up from subscribers to Big Boobs magazine; so far the vast majority of Salem-area residents appear to be saying No! to this $700 million waste of taxpayer money.)

But no matter what the Third Bridge is called, some plain facts remain: it isn't needed; it isn't wanted; and it can't be afforded. 

Comments

[Jim Scheppke]

Brian, you are in luck because the Council extended the public hearing to June 24th so you can come to Council and testify then. The Mayor is not allowing anyone who testified at the last two hearings to testify again. About 50 opponents of the bridge have testified. We will need lots of fresh blood on June 24th. I hope you will mark your calendar. Others reading this too!

[Brian Hines]

Jim, it's sort of weird how every City Council hearing on the Third Bridge has been/is on a day where I have a significant conflict. Like in June, my wife's birthday.

But for sure I'll submit written testimony. I've got opinions, and I've got questions.

Though I admit to not having studied this issue to the extent that I should have (have been obsessed with the US Bank tree removals more than the Third Bridge of late), I'm puzzled by the seeming lack of basic planning on the part of proponents.

What the heck are the problems the Third Bridge is supposed to resolve? So far as I can tell, each of those purported problems could be addressed in a different manner that would be more effective and much cheaper.

Reminds me of the US Bank trees: with the City of Salem these days, a decision seems to come first -- cut down the trees; build the bridge -- then reasons are conjured up to justify the decision. This is poor management, poor planning, poor acting in support of the public trust.