Shortly after the bridge was painted I noticed rust coming through the paint. I thought to myself, did we really pay for a complete paint job and not fix the corrosion? Did we get any warranty with the work? Seems wasteful to pay for such a huge paint job and inconvenience the public for what seemed like forever with the bridge being down to one lane to have rust showing through the paint almost right away. Could we have had the bridge primed and treated for rust, applied a corrosion prevention coating, or any other measure to stop (or greatly reduce) the bridge from rusting underneath the new paint?
I am glad we are repairing old infrastructure here in Cecil County, but I can't help but wonder if we could have been smarter about the repair, and why it seems to have been done without a rust inhibitor.
Ultimately it is the taxpayers who must absorb the cost of large jobs like this, and it is frustrating to say the least when a job this large is done so poorly. I think we should hold our subcontractors to a higher level of accountability.