I read the letter to the newspaper Southern Francisco Eguiluz Councilman, released a few days, in relation to the location of the 2 nd bridge to Isla Teja.
Perhaps he and council member, has access to information for now perceive absent in the current debate, as all references to this subject is to answer the question "where to place a 2 nd bridge the Isla Teja? "and the question is logically prior," we need a 2 nd bridge to Isla Teja ?"...¿ already made, analyzed, studied and answered?
Perhaps I missed, I arrived to Valdivia in March 2008. Or is it that is so completely taken from the public and our authorities that need, we have opted to skip this test? Anyone help me catch up? Would not we be precipitated and yielding to the temptation of irresponsible actions shortsighted?
And when a 2nd bridge to facilitate live far from urban radio, increase the business Property for sale, and filled Punucapa, Cutipay, etc. condo and raise the car park until the 2 nd bridge dream becomes insufficient and the future in spite of it is equal to this? Will there be a 3 rd, 4 th bridge, a highway concession and 4 tracks to Pilolcura Colún?
Or is it perhaps that Valdivia is a victim, like so many cities, the automobile market collusion with real estate?
Personally I do not dare to argue that this bridge is not necessary, and eye, still alive in the tile and thus the bottleneck for the bridge to me is bread of every day, especially in the summer season and the oversubscription of road surface that involves the flow towards the coast or Saval.
However, if we consider what it says Ivan Illich: "Forty thousand people crossing a bridge in an hour, take two train tracks were used, four tracks when traveling Bus, 12, if they do drive, and less than two if they make a bike ", we must ask: Is it necessary to widen the bridge Valdivia, do another? Or must first download the road surface used by every citizen and once this is achieved, re-evaluate interventions in infrastructure?
0 comments:
Post a Comment