Now when Bob wanted to subdivide, actually to re-subdivide as the original subdivisions and Title Deeds were already separate, the Shire told him if he put the bridge and road in, they would maintain both, which they have. So that is the basic history of "our" bridge, as I remember it.
Now, in early December I visited mum on the Thursday as is my wont, and noticed a big sign saying the Bridge would be closed on the 8th for maintenance. It was a timber structure on metal girders, and even though it was in need of a little repair, the bridge was in fairly good condition. As such I thought it would only be for basic maintenance. So I was quite surprised the following week to find that the whole wooden structure had been removed and replaced with a concrete structure.
While pondering this, “my wife remarked that it was probably because of the current Bush fire danger and the concern of the 6 families being isolated and marooned if the bridge did burn down. Later my son remarked that it probably had more to do with the fact that there are now rich people living up there and that they didn’t want a tacky old wooden bridge for their main access.
Who is right? I don’t know but suspect that both may be partially right and that the excuse of fire danger has expedited the replacement of the bridge with a more durable type.
Looking back at these three bridges I came to the following observations:
- Some things in life, Jobs, situations, etc are like the original bush bridge that I remember: structure only suited to a limited usage and with strict limitations, which if unobserved would cause irreparable damage, even destruction of the task, situation (bridge) at hand.
2.Other situations, like Bob’s bridge are adequate for the task at hand and most regular demands of its proposed usage, but again are limited in regard to irregular extremes.
3.Yet others, like the concrete bridge, not only adequately meet current and future needs but also unexpected yet possible dangers such as Bushfires.