Letters to the Editor

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.

(1) comment


Additionally, they only painted the inside of the bridge. Boats going underneath it see a lot more rust and corrosion.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.