We do not have such a policy. Op-ed pieces submitted by elected officials are reviewed for possible publication without regard their elected status. That is to say, we are neither more inclined nor less inclined to publish an op-ed piece based on the fact that the writer is an elected official.

One of the considerations given to a submission by any writer is this: Does the community’s interest in the content outweigh the writer’s possible self-interest in writing? Are there writers with competing interests to whom we should think about extending an invitation to write something on the same topic?

If it were truly dangerous I’m certain that responsible people like those who have commented here would be doing something to get it closed immediately in order to protect the public, including themselves and their children.

Its dangerous condition doesn’t appear controversial to me.

I don’t have one.

If we don’t agree that your perception of the situation (overly narrow lanes, high number of inexperienced drivers more likely to have some kind of collision, dangerous merge) matches reality–and we don’t, then I doubt that we’ll be able to agree on any of those other questions, Fred.

I like Ed’s approach of looking for ways that might quickly and easily improve the current situation in this particular location. Improving the traffic flow might also increase the perceived safety of the roadway over the bridges.

So I stand by my social assessment that many people on this board (including you, and certainly myself) tend to minimize concerns that don’t fit with their views–and we do so more often when the concerns don’t fit with our agenda.

the rhetorical device of asking probing questions about need comes up a lot here and at arborupdate, and while I understand the appeal of carrying out that sort of analysis, sometimes it is just silly. I don’t need to do a big study, and you don’t really need to ask probing questions, to be pretty darned confident that overly narrow merging lanes and a high number of student and inexperienced drivers are going to correlate well with an increased rate of accidents.

(Fortunately, they are likely to be less minor, as this is sort of like a straight-line roundabout, which drastically reduces fatalities because of reducing t-bone acccidents).

So Steve, what is your agenda for bridge safety? Can we agree that all bridges in the city should be brought up to an independent standard of bridge and traffic safety? Can we agree on a schedule that correlates levels of impairment with maximum time until a fix?

Because that wouldn’t be true. Or pertinent. This isn’t about personal preferences, it’s about public policy. Do you agree?

“I don’t have a problem with that view, it’s perfectly logical given your premises — but I don’t like it when you and others reflexively minimize obviously legitimate concerns because of your broader agenda.”

Please don’t misrepresent my comments or presume to know my reasons for them. If you want to know something about them, please ask, and I’ll give an honest answer. But feel free to not like it. :-)

This all started with the safety of the bridge structure being called into question. I just asked if it is true that the bridge is unsafe. Is it really, or does it just feel that way?

If you truly believe that the lanes are too narrow, Fred, to the point that they’re unsafe, I suggest that you communicate that directly to someone who can do something about it. They may ask the same questions, though, “How is it unsafe? What’s the evidence?”, which is why I posed it here.

Kris, there is a plan to implement fixes. What’s behind the multiple exclamation points? What is it that you’re angry about or fear might happen?

I don’t have a problem with that view, it’s perfectly logical given your premises — but I don’t like it when you and others reflexively minimize obviously legitimate concerns because of your broader agenda. You’re not going to get anywhere selling sustainability that way.

Details

People need to realize that concrete beams do not deflect permanently in normal operation, this is a sign of failure. The fact that it’s being tracked will simply help to tell us how fast the failure is progressing. Having to narrow a major artery without a plan to implement fixes is a joke.