Democrats charge Minnesota GOP Governor Pawlenty is rushing new bridge

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT, pg1: Bridge Failure Can’t Fend Off Usual Politics
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: August 16, 2007

....The battle lines extended from disputed plans for light rail to suggestions that Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, was unnecessarily rushing reconstruction to impress Republican Party leaders, who will hold their presidential convention in the Twin Cities in September 2008. Mr. Pawlenty says such talk is nonsense....

Mr. Pawlenty and his State Department of Transportation have already unveiled broad plans for the new bridge, announcing the names of five possible contractors, and urging that it be open in record time, by the end of next year. But R. T. Rybak, a Democrat who is mayor of Minneapolis; some Democratic leaders in the State Legislature; and members of the Minneapolis City Council have been loudly critical, questioning the need — and safety, given everything — of rushing to build a bridge.

Some called for provisions to allow light rail along the new span. Some called for a memorial for the victims. Mostly, they demanded: Why the hurry?

In a place where politics is usually more civil than in many other big cities, everyone involved seems to wish to play down a rift. Still, Mr. Pawlenty’s fiercest critics said they wondered whether the governor was hoping to turn attention toward a new bridge in the coming months and away from an investigation into why the old bridge failed and whether there were signs missed. Some suggested that Mr. Pawlenty hoped to show progress on a new bridge when the Republicans arrive for the convention. Minnesota is considered a swing state in presidential elections, and some Republicans here have speculated that Mr. Pawlenty might be running-mate material.

“Politics isn’t rocket science, you know,” said Steve Murphy, a state senator and Democratic leader of the Transportation Committee. “Quite frankly, there’s no reason to rush headlong into building this bridge.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/us/16bridge.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

[Warpy]

1. Uh, that bridge was on an Interstate , which means it was a main

artery. There is no way any governor/mayor/highway official would not rush the construction of a new one!

Let's just hope they don't try to duplicate the old one.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I would rather they took their time

What good does it do to erect a bridge too quickly and then have IT collapse? Let's remember the weather factors at play, too.

[sabbat hunter]

5. They should get the bridge built

ASAP as this was over a major artery. Construct a temporary bridge if necessary while a permanent bridge with the light rail is constructed, but a bridge needs to get built quickly.

They built the original yankee stadium in 11 months.

The empire state building was completed and opened in 410 days.

Why should building of structures take far longer than that these days? Corporate greed, corruption.

Lets get back to the days that new construction (Be it buildings, bridges, etc) was done quickly, efficiently. with the modern equipment and following of safety standards there is no reason why this shouldn't happen.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Weather is a factor

especially in Minnesota. Not a good idea to pour concrete in -35 degree weather.

[rodeodance]

3. I like the idea of the monorail using this path.

[slackmaster]

4. I think there's a used one from the 1964 World's Fair available

:D

[rodeodance]

9. There is anew one-i have taken it from downtown to the airport. It is great.

[whoneedstickets]

6. I live in MN, commute, and am livid at my party about this...

The "why rush" argument given the insane traffic in the Cities as a result of this is pure political suicide. If Pawlenty (or Coleman) can make the case the democratic state legislature's obstructionism and gamesmanship forced months or years of extra traffic delay then the 2008 election here could be a very different outcome from the one we were all hoping for. People want I35 open again. Trying to use this as an opportunity to squeeze in some pet project is foolish. My state representatives are idiots.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Thanks for your post, whoneedstickets! It's great to have an "on the scene" view. nt

[donsu]

11. just how fast can things be done? the broken bridge, etc. is still

lying in pieces on land and in the water. how many months before all that is out of the way? and then studies need to be made, etc.

I don't see how 'fast' enters the picture.

[Bitwit1234]

8. If Phew-lenty and his Lt Gov had not nixed the repairs

they bridge would have been fixed. THAT's what he is trying to take the attention away from. THAT is why he is hurrying it up. So he can show progress and maybe everyone will forget whose fault it is the bridge fell. HIS AND THE LT. GOV...who by the way is the head of the Department of Transportation. How do you like that.

[Love Bug]

12. I live in Minneapolis and slapping up a new bridge in a hurry

isn't going to inspire any confidence in me regarding it's safety. And why do we want to continue the status quo of more cars, more cars, more cars? Since we have to build a new bridge anyway, why can't we consider the future beyond the next 12 months and make sure this one will support future mass transit needs? No one is suggesting they take their sweet old time but the whole "damn the environmental impact studies so we can get a new bridge asap" attitude suggests that our elected officials shouldn't care about our quality of life, the environment or why the old bridge fell down in the first place. I expect this attitude from Republicans -- after all, corporate interests are their only concern. I INSIST our DFL reps ask these questions. That's why I vote for them.

BTW -- I don't get why Minnesota is considered a swing state. Our electoral votes have gone for the Democrat since I don't know when. I'm pissed at the Times for continuing that meme.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. Thanks for your post, Love Bug! nt