Information regarding the closure of the iconic San Juanico Bridge to huge and heavy vehicles over 3 tons in weight is simply mindboggling. The sudden closure and ban to heavy vehicles came as a surprise to travelers who had never been informed prior to such closure. Many travelers were stranded at both ends of the bridge as there was confusion where to go to any alternate route. It took several days before concerned officials thought of the old Amandayehan port that was used some years back when the bridge was rehabilitated. Unfortunately, said port was not ready for docking and passage of heavy loads as it was found needing major repair.
What keeps government officials from sharing and disclosing vital information to the public regarding nagging questions about the damage of the San Juanico Bridge that until the time the information remains unclear, chiefly on the structural findings of the consultant.
The photos shared to the public showing rust and corrosion are superficial images that do not describe the strength of the damage of the piers, girders, trusses and gusset plates shown in the pictures. There too were no underwater images and videos showing the damaged foundations. All these information if shared to the media and the public would dispel all doubts regarding what appears to be a progressive cost and timeline for the complete retrofitting of the bridge.
This writer had been asking for a detailed information regarding the findings as to the structural damage, the detailed cost estimate as well as the original load design of the bridge that would explain why the sudden goal to restore the bearing capacity of the bridge to 12 tons. The original load design that the public works and highways department is now aiming to restore is reportedly the 33 tons original bearing capacity. Increasing the bearing capacity to more than 10 times the 3 tons limit that the said agency imposed when it closed the bridge due to the reported damage is certainly too costly.
People could not be blamed if they entertain doubts as to the continuing increase of the cost that the repair of the bridge would reportedly require. There too are suggestions from various sectors to have the original contractor that constructed the bridge be tapped to undertake the repair. The public would be interested if the repair would be made transparent considering that it is taxpayers’ money that is used to finance the repair. Some people believe that the original builder has the expertise and experience than any other. But we could not discount the capability of other contractors who may have advanced equipment and technology to do the job. All that the public needs is transparency so that they can participate in checking the repair works.
The unclear aspects of the repair had caused even the city chief executive who is not bothered with the foul and stinky odor that the unclear sea water along the seawall and fish port area emit, smell something fishy about the bridge repair that seems a work in increasing cost. It really needs more that meets the eye to seen through what remains murky.
comments to alellema@yahoo.com
