Bridging the Gap

[XLFD]

When a bridge has outlasted its usefulness, the first question one needs to ask before money is spent on repairing or rebuilding it is whether it is worth the expense. The State has recently affirmed a grant for rebuilding the Washington Street Bridge in Ludington at a cost of $2.5 million.

Since the bridge was built in its present form in 1967, it has deteriorated and so has its usefulness. Back then, there was a medical facility and several businesses south of the bridge that benefitted from its presence. The hospital is no more, and the businesses that still exist can either better use Madison Street to connect to the city or else gain little benefit from the existence of the Bridge.

Arguments For

In defense of its existence, it does ease the traffic on Madison Street and does save those traveling to or from addresses west of Washington and south of the bridge up to two blocks travel if their other point of travel is also west of Washington on the other side. It can also provide a detour when Madison Street is under repair.

But studies show only about 4 cars a minute travel across the bridge on your typical day, less in the off-season, and by no means is Madison Street overwhelmed by traffic, or would be with the additional load. Madison Street with its wide shoulders and recent renovation, should be able to be repaired a lane at a time as a minor inconvenience without detouring traffic.

Arguments Against

City Councilor Engblade has consistently pointed out that this bridge has had no maintenance program in its 40+ year existence. None has been proposed for the new bridge. Ex-CC Greg Dykstra pointed out in a May 2009 meeting that the prohibitive costs of repairing/replacing the bridge should involve a public discussion of whether it should remain there. All others thought this topic was not worthy of discussion   May 2009 Lud CC Meeting WAB pt 2 

The bridge has been a hindrance to those who dock their boats beyond the bridge, and the costs it would take just to raise the bridge the proposed two feet for their convenience, could pay for its demolition and removal, with perhaps enough left over to have a raised foot bridge. That area could become a lot nicer with minimal investments. A specialty park perhaps. Right now it is just the proverbial 'bridge to nowhere'.

Fuzzy Math Adds Up to Graft?

There is little reason to keep the bridge, but none currently in City Hall want to even discuss an alternative to a $2.5 million bridge overhaul with tax dollars. They will say that the City has to pay under $400,000 of that cost, as if the $2.1 million comes from 'the bridge fairy'.  It comes from us too so they/we should be good stewards of that money as well. If you hadn't noticed, our State and Federal Governments are kind of floundering in money problems. Part of the solution is cutting wasteful spending.

But here's the main problem, and it involves a little math so bear with me. In 2008, this project was proposed with a $1,790,000 price tag, ($315,000 from the City funds) and a starting year of 2011, but the State did not approve it at that time.     May 2008 Lud CC Mtg

Once again it was proposed in May 2009, in the midst of a recession with little outlook of abatement, but this time with a much larger price tag of $2,494,000 ($382,000 from the City)-- a 40% increase in the overall cost and a starting year of 2012. City Manager John Shay said $170,000 of the cost was increased to raise the bridge two feet higher, the only difference noted.    May 2009 Lud CC Meeting WAB pt 1    This still leaves over 30% of the cost, more than a $500,000 difference in the figures between 2008 and 2009 proposals.

Inflation (which has been negligible until recent) is not the answer for this difference, for when they failed once again to get State approval, they applied in 2010 for the same grant (to be started in 2013) and attached the same $2,494,000 figure.   Nor is any other cause of such a difference in proposals ever noted.    May 2010 Lud CC Mtg WAB

Troubled Waters

 

Coincidently, when this project was nixed in the autumn of 2009, Mr. Shay was busy coordinating the painting of the two water towers without any competitive bidding sought-- more than ten years before it needed to be considered-- for a price tag of $1,000,000 (over 600%) more than what it was painted for in the year 2000. When both towers were painted inside and out.

One could make the point that there is a whole lot of tax money not being adequately accounted for. But then I suppose others could say we will have more attractive water towers and a new bridge.   For them, money-- other people's money-- is no object.

[AQUAMAN]

The present CC is made up of too many "downstate Detroit mindsets". In other words, people whom would tell you these things were done in the past, and must be done again, without any knowledge of it's history nor original purpose, nor other of the above updated considerations of what is needed now. Nor what is fair to pay for such large projects, and what kind of bidders are worthy of such projects given past and present bidding. To say this Washington Ave. bridge is a bridge to nowhere, is a severe understatement at best. It served it's needed purposes in the 1960's-1980's. A walk-bridge with a nice bike path another 8'-12' higher is all that would suffice nowadays. And save about $2Million in the process or more. But, we seem to have a CC that thinks much like Obama/Granholm types, that being that the people can afford anything they dream up as good government, and that we are most likely stuck with these poor economic decisions for decades to come based on today's arrogance and unwillingness to bend to common sense and studies that address the problems in advance. Some public feedback to see all this would have helped enormously too, but, I never see it being asked for nor desired.

[easymoney]

Since I was raised in the fourth ward, I'm sure the feedback from those who live on the other side of the bridge would probably not agree with just getting rid of the bridge. As for raising it a couple of feet, who would need the height? Tourist with high masted sail boats? How many even use the facilaties on that side of the bridge?

Sincer I've been out of the area for years, can't make a judgement on this article. But, I do remember cutting across water street one way or the other to avoid the train traffic. Which I'm sure is no longer a problem.

Again, the raising of the bridge height, is to accomidate(sp?) people who are not permanent residents of the community , as is with most every development done in Lud.

Who's more important??

[XLFD]

You are correct, trains don't make it down that way anymore, Easymoney, since the car ferries don't traffic them across the pond anymore and the tracks across the two streets are no more.  I'm across the street from the Fourth Ward (albeit on Dowland Street north of the bridge) and use the Washington Bridge frequently myself, so I will have to change my own habits; but this would only be travelling a different route with no added distance. 

Businesses like Fritz's Pour House, and the Artists' Market, may lose some business from drive-by customers, and some living west and south of the bridge may have to drive up to two blocks out of the way, but if we do eliminate the bridge it actually may enhance traffic flow for the majority. 

Consider: with Washington Street as a cul-de-sac south of Dowland, Dowland Street should become a thru street.  If you travel to or from First/Sixth Street/South Old 31 en route to the western parts of the city (via Dowland, James/Rath, etc.) ,which accounts for most of the non-local traffic, you will have one less stop sign to consider on your trip of equal distance.  In a previous article on the totally useless stop signs placed at the four corners of Washington and Bryant, I noted a study that showed how much extra costs an unnecessary stop sign causes for motorists.  Not having a bridge will thus actually save the majority of motorists even more time and money beyond the $2.5 million! 

[XLFD]

Former CC Greg Dykstra did want to have public input into this topic and brought it up, but his view was never seriously considered or took up by him or others that I know of. 

The $2.5 million proposed for this project would provide over $1000 to a family of three in Ludington if it was redistributed to all here equally.   A lot better use of the money, if you ask me.

[Sweater Cows!]

without reading others responses I thiink it needs to be there so that the traffic isn't routing across dowland between Mad. & Wash, even Melendy or any of the other streets, they are to residential too many houses.

[XLFD]

That's a very good concern, Lando, because the removal of the bridge would affect that one block stretch of Dowland greatly.  The City is scheduled to work on Dowland Street this year and could engineer the street to be more conducive to the increased traffic flow with regard to that sections residents, with little added cost. 

This southern route already has plenty of residential areas to pass in the Fourth Ward on First and Sixth Streets, so the residents on that Dowland stretch would just have to adapt to the increased traffic flow like they have and the rest of Dowland Street to the west has.  

The traffic engineering would be critical to the success of not having this bridge.  Since it may be a moot point at this time, it could be interesting to see how they rework the traffic when the bridge is taken out of commission in 2013.  At that point, we just may see what problems we would have had without the bridge-- or perhaps, we will see how little effect on residents and visitors that bridge actually has. 

[XLFD]

Even if you, the reader, may disagree with me on the necessity of rebuilding the Washington Bridge, let us not forget the irregularities involved in the process of getting this grant.  When the City applies to the State for money to replace a bridge one year, and then reapplies the next year for the same project, but tacks an extra $700,000 cost to it without justifying $530,000 of that increase, why isn't there any justification or public explanation?  Are we so used to public funds being wasted all the time, that this doesn't register any surprise? 

[XLFD]

Just one more point on this bridge and its necessity.  If the city made this a toll bridge at the low cost of a quarter to pass, and say it had one of those unmanned gates that would raise and lower to let you pass when you threw twenty -five cents in it, and let's say Madison Street was kept free, do you really think you'd see any use of that bridge after a while? 

Yet we want to sink ten million quarters into rebuilding it, when we could just retire it after it has served it's purpose the last 40 years, and then...  we could do something special with that area.