Inner city bridges; from today's CBC news website:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ysis-1.6744419
I try very hard not to be one of the interminable complainers you see in forums like this, but this is an area that truly frustrates me. There is no debate whether the Arlington and Louise bridges need to be replaced, they simply do. The fact is, they never do, and I'm afraid there will never be movement on this until one or both partially collapse and there will be loss of life and property.
The article points out that there has been federal money for other big ticket projects in the city, making them more feasible to complete. It also points out that prioritizing $$ for projects that will help generate revenue
seems like a legitimate way to prioritize spending. I suppose that's fair to an extent, but IMO the politics of "inner city vs outlying areas"
has to be a big factor in whether or not these projects proceed.
Even though Janice Lukes is quoted in the article as saying: "I honestly don't think it's an inner-city versus outlying areas thing. I think we prioritize where we can we get the best bang for the buck.", IMO the influence that politicians have, or choose to have, on where federal funding gets directed has been a huge factor in the continued delays to get these projects started.
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is an old adage that I think applies here. The inner city can be conveniently ignored when the bulk of the city/provincial representatives live elsewhere. I can't help but think these decisions contribute to feelings of desertion and neglect when inner city residents see $$ being directed towards other infrastructure projects when their needs get all but ignored.