Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

jammies · 03-27-2012, 12:36 AM

You can't make a decision on whether the bridge is a waste of money or not without knowing:

- How long it is intended to last
- How much it will cost in maintenance
- How much it is used over its lifespan
- How much it increases pedestrian/bike trips to the core

None of the bridge opponents care about anything but the upfront price tag as compared to some theoretical "cheaper" bridge, or no bridge at all. If the bridge lasts 100 years and costs its original price in maintenance over that time, that's a heck of a lot better than one costing $15 million that ends up costing triple that in maintenance and lasts 40 years (not that I'm saying this is necessarily the case but WE DON'T KNOW), or a bridge that has to get built 10 years from now to handle the pedestrian/bike overflow for $50 million and costs a million a year to keep up.

Never have so many been so opinionated about something so unknowable. Give it 10 years and we can maybe decide if it was a good idea or not. Trying to hold this bridge up as a symbol of waste and the city administration's cluelessness NOW just shows how people get focused on one or two easily understandable "facts" about a subject and are then content to extrapolate from that to confirm their already formed opinions on a tangentially related issue.

03-27-2012, 12:36 AM	#2127
jammies Basement Chicken Choker Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants. Exp:	You can't make a decision on whether the bridge is a waste of money or not without knowing: - How long it is intended to last - How much it will cost in maintenance - How much it is used over its lifespan - How much it increases pedestrian/bike trips to the core None of the bridge opponents care about anything but the upfront price tag as compared to some theoretical "cheaper" bridge, or no bridge at all. If the bridge lasts 100 years and costs its original price in maintenance over that time, that's a heck of a lot better than one costing $15 million that ends up costing triple that in maintenance and lasts 40 years (not that I'm saying this is necessarily the case but WE DON'T KNOW), or a bridge that has to get built 10 years from now to handle the pedestrian/bike overflow for $50 million and costs a million a year to keep up. Never have so many been so opinionated about something so unknowable. Give it 10 years and we can maybe decide if it was a good idea or not. Trying to hold this bridge up as a symbol of waste and the city administration's cluelessness NOW just shows how people get focused on one or two easily understandable "facts" about a subject and are then content to extrapolate from that to confirm their already formed opinions on a tangentially related issue. __________________ Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.