Of­fi­cials are ig­nor­ing less costly bridge al­ter­na­tives

The Calvert Recorder - - Community Forum -

I was about to write this let­ter af­ter read­ing the re­port of the Mary­land Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion rep­re­sen­ta­tive and the meet­ing about it with our Board of County Com­mis­sion­ers, when I also saw the Oct. 27 let­ter to the ed­i­tor from Mrs. Chenoweth rais­ing the is­sue of an al­ter­nate Patux­ent River cross­ing, which I have ap­par­ently been the only per­son to raise the pos­si­bil­ity for con­sid­er­a­tion.

Mrs. Chenoweth’s let­ter speaks for it­self and I will not con­trib­ute more to it.

The re­port from the state MDOT and the si­lence from the BOCC in­di­cates to me that for some rea­son, nei­ther or­ga­ni­za­tion seems to care about spend­ing an ad­di­tional $250-$300 mil­lion (their num­bers re­ported) Mary­land tax­payer dol­lars to build another Gov. Thomas John­son Bridge in­stead of at least con­sid­er­ing the pos­si­bil­ity pro­posed in my let­ter.

I will re­it­er­ate that given cost growth, and what seems a lack of con­cern from both lo­cal and state rep­re­sen­ta­tives about spend­ing those sums with­out even con­sid­er­ing a study to do a cost ben­e­fit anal­y­sis and look at any al­ter­na­tives, con­firms what seems to be an ig­no­rance of spend­ing our tax dol­lars. I will re­it­er­ate that I see this not sim­ply as a tax­payer, but that I am also a reg­is­tered pro­fes­sional (civil) en­gi­neer with PE cre­den­tials in Florida and fed­er­ally (the U.S. govern­ment).

I have been asked why I have not pre­sented this con­cept to the BOCC or oth­ers. I think given the ex­change re­ported in The Calvert Recorder’s Oct. 27 ar­ti­cle answers that ques­tion. There was a time when the BOCC of this county seemed to ex­am­ine ev­ery penny spent on projects. When did that end?

Aure­lio Azpi­azu, Port Repub­lic

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.