Archived Topics

Posted By: Jean de Smet <demac@galaxyinternet.net>
Date: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 4:09 p.m.

I love the bridge, and enjoyed the grand opening this weekend.

But I noted in both the Chronicle and the Bulletin the stories stated that the bridge was necessary because the old bridges flooded. I've never heard of either of those bridges actually flooding! Did they? They were closed a few times because the water was high--most recently in '82, I think. I'm just thinking that, 100 years from now, when an historian reads the papers about the origins of the new bridge, the misinformation will be really confusing. Or am I wrong? 

3 posts missing

Posted By: Jean de Smet <demac@galaxyinternet.net>
Date: Monday, 6 August 2001, at 5:18 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Thread City Crossing (Ron D.)

I agree! The new bridge is a big improvement. I'm still wondering if anyone actually saw the old bridges flood, though... 

Posted By: michael sledjeski <mbsledjeski@msn.com>
Date: Monday, 6 August 2001, at 10:21 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Thread City Crossing (Jean de Smet)

I grew up in Willi and left in the 60's, hoping to get as far away as I could. I visited briefly in May of this year and I liked what I saw, starting with the new bridge. Whether or not the old bridges flooded (and I'm pretty sure the Jilson Hill underpass flooded during a mid-50's hurricane), the new one will help bring Willi up to date. The frogs are fabulous, the traffic layout is smooth, the entry into the city impressive. I'm a great believer in preservation, but the old bridge was a clumsy horse and buggy design based on antiquated engineering principles. The politicians or whoever can be proud.