Ann Arbor City Council expected to vote on removing crumbling East Stadium bridge beams
The Ann Arbor City Council is expected to take emergency action on Monday to address safety concerns regarding the East Stadium Boulevard bridge over South State Street.
An engineering firm warned the city last month that it's possible - though not likely - that "football sized" concrete could fall from the bridge, injuring anyone below.
City officials say it's now time to play a game of punt, pass and kick.
The City Council will be asked Monday night to approve spending up to $100,000 to remove damaged beams and up to $340,000 to have DTE Energy relocate power lines as part of a bridge replacement project.
Northwest Consultants Inc. inspected the bridge on Sept. 15 and recommended removing, at a minimum, one damaged beam and possibly all five southernmost beams. City staff is now recommending that the five beams be demolished in November.
"Due to the critical condition of the beams, they should be removed prior to the winter as their condition is such that they may become unstable during freezing weather and pieces of concrete could fall onto passing vehicles or pedestrians travelling along South State Street," Homayoon Pirooz, manager of the city's project management unit, wrote in a memo.
Pirooz said due to the number of weekend events in this area, work will most likely occur from a Sunday morning until Tuesday afternoon. During that time, South State Street will be closed and traffic will be detoured. Two lanes of traffic will be maintained along East Stadium Boulevard.
After the demolition is complete, a portion of the bridge deck will no longer exist. City officials say a concrete barrier will need to be installed to prevent vehicles and pedestrians from entering the "gap" in the bridge deck on the south side of the bridge.
City officials said the DTE Energy power lines need to be temporarily relocated underground in order to allow for safe demolition and construction of a new bridge span over the railroad tracks. Once the bridge has been reconstructed, DTE will replace the lines above ground.
Ann Arbor officials laid out plans in August for a $22.1 million reconstruction of the two East Stadium Boulevard bridge spans over South State Street and the nearby railroad tracks.
Pirooz said the city has received support for the bridge replacement project from U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the University of Michigan, SEMCOG, U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer and U.S. Sen. Carl Levin. City officials hope that that support will pay dividends as the city seeks state and federal funding for the bridge project.
The city submitted a TIGER grant application to the U.S. Department of Transportation on Sept. 13, requesting $21 million. The department will make a decision by February.
Work on the construction drawings for the project has begun. The city plans to hold community involvement and information sharing meetings regarding the project in October and November.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
a2roots
Mon, Oct 19, 2009 : 1:11 p.m.
It truly is amazing that the residents of a city with such vast financial and intellectual resources can continually put in office and succumb to inept leadership.
Moose
Mon, Oct 19, 2009 : 9:38 a.m.
Because of the two D's, dawdling and dithering by a leaderless council, the high level of ignorance displayed by Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins and disatrous mismanagement at the top levels in city hall, the bridge project is not "shovel ready". There isn't a plan or a known cost of construction, there are no bids from contractors and certainly little public agreement on the project. It's hard to get the Feds to pay attention and send some stim money because the people in charge did NOTHING about the problem when it was first brought to their attention many years ago.
InsideTheHall
Mon, Oct 19, 2009 : 7:29 a.m.
Oh Obama and Biden this is as shovel ready as you get....please please send money and save the day!
Wystan
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 9:08 p.m.
"just wondering" (the first to comment) asks "why can't the grade be put back to its original state....?" In fact, the grade IS in its original state. Stadium Boulevard was a new road in 1927 (or thereabouts), built when the stadium was built. It never existed before then, and the bridges were built along with the new road, and have always been part of the road.
Hans Masing
Sun, Oct 18, 2009 : 9:43 a.m.
@newsboy - Wow, way to anthropomorphize a bridge! *sigh*
newsboy
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 9:38 p.m.
This bridge has been in Ann Arbor for many years. It has seen solders go off to war while loved ones waved goodbye. Its seen the maze & blue win and lose many a championship. It has seen protests and civil disobedience, it has seen the city grow from its once outwardly location. This bridge was here when presidents came to Ann Arbor. This bridge has felt our sorrow, our pain, our happiness. So now in its time of need the city just wants to tear it down; couldnt we build a green circle around it? Maybe we could make a park to sit and look at its football sized chunks as they fall. Thousands of years from now will anyone ever know it existed?
Sandy
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 4:25 p.m.
Why did the city of Ann Arbor hire an out of state consulting firm when there is one right here in Ann Arbor? At the least they should have kept the job in Michigan. Shame on you.
Larry Kestenbaum
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 1:33 p.m.
The no-bridge option would require widening the rights-of-way and a five-lane by five-lane intersection at State/Stadium. That would still be pretty expensive. The city's $22 million conceptual plan involves putting East Stadium UNDER the tracks and UNDER State Street. The amount of earth moving required is awesome to contemplate. Stadium and State would both be closed for years of construction. And the whole thing depends on getting a massive state or federal subsidy, which is pretty unlikely now. The quickest and cheapest option (especially if we are using only local funds) would be to simply replace the State/Stadium bridge span itself. Leave the railroad bridge alone until it actually needs replacement. Can't we continue to live with the existing amount of clearance over State Street and the railroad? Is it worth tens of millions of dollars just to fix that?
Steve Hendel
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 9:42 a.m.
Yes, some of the buses are full some of the time, but it appears to me that most of the buses are VERY lightly loaded most of the time. Just look at any bus that goes by during non-rush hours (and even some during rush hours). This is, of course, just my observation over many years of observing (and riding) them. I'd love to see some statistics of average (not just peak) load.
daytona084
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 8:22 a.m.
Remove the bridge altogether? Then we could have another bottleneck like Washtenaw/Carpenter or Jackson/Maple! They must remember to put a mis-timed traffic light and for best results build a giant mall on the corner to plug things up completely! It fits in quite well with the city's measures (like retail with inadequate parking and removal of lanes) to get people to give up on driving and just walk!
Alan Benard
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 8:10 a.m.
@Steve Hendel - I've been working on a piece about full buses Please don't confuse the issue with facts. Our amateur traffic engineers, city planners and transportation experts don't need them to spout off nonsensically.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 7:27 a.m.
Government at nearly every level is sadly incompetent anymore. They have no fiscal responsibility because they are spending somebody else's money. Yes I know they pay taxes too. But if every time one of us put 100 bucks in our check book $10,000,000 "magically" appeared we might spend like drunken sailors too. My apologies to drunken sailors for comparing you to politicians.
Steve Hendel
Sat, Oct 17, 2009 : 7:04 a.m.
WALLY (north-south rail) exists only in the dream world of politicians and bureaucrats who pay more attention to flashy ideas with low-balled cost estimates than the actual here-and-now issues. How else to explain, for instance, the perennial dithering on the Argo Dam and the East Stadium bridge? Anyway, we already have enough almost-empty buses cruising around; do we really need almost-empty trains to complement them?
A 2 Fan NOT!!!
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 9:46 p.m.
Why not another roundabout?!?
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 8:34 p.m.
Because that would make too much sense. "Why not leave the lines underground? Seems like that would be an improvement."
kittybkahn
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 6:28 p.m.
"City officials said the DTE Energy power lines need to be temporarily relocated underground in order to allow for safe demolition and construction of a new bridge span over the railroad tracks. Once the bridge has been reconstructed, DTE will replace the lines above ground." Why not leave the lines underground? Seems like that would be an improvement.
Whither Detburger
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 5:37 p.m.
As has been noted in previous stories, legally it is very difficult, if not impossible, to construct a new at-grade crossing over a railroad track when the railroad doesn't want it. Guess how often railroads want a new crossing.
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4:23 p.m.
I'm not plugging the mayor in any way shape or form, but his website makes no mention of being a UM employee. He certainly makes big deals of all the committees he's been on and it makes it look like he was the only one doing any of all those "green" things he lists. Here's his UM info. http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/faculty/John_Hieftje Here's his politician website. http://hieftje.org/mayor-john-hieftje Isn't it strange that the link from his UM page to his namesake website take you to the City of Ann Arbor's home page? I would think that being a lecturer at the UM would be on anyones professional resume'. You have to wonder why he doesn't list that on his fancy politician website.
DagnyJ
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 4:04 p.m.
The Mayor works at UM? Wow. Talk about town-gown relations. As for the bridge, it needs to be fixed. Duh. As for the city council, clearly they need to be tossed. All of them. Just because you may live and vote in a different ward doesn't mean you will be spared from football size concrete. I am truly appalled at the council. I mean really, they are so wrapped up in the unimportant side issues--recycling, greenbelts, greenways, stonewalling development, keeping money-losing golf courses up and running, listening to the sound of their own voices on cable television. Hey, there's no time left for such stuff as bridge repair.
81wolverine
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:59 p.m.
Although it's good the city has taken action (finally) to get the project underway, it's disgraceful that it's taken them this long to act. This project should have been started at least several years ago. The idea of making the State/Stadium intersection a traffic light one, and eliminating the bridges is intriguing. But, the long term plan for the rail line would have to be considered. And I think it would be a hugely disruptive project as a long stretch of Stadium both east and west of the bridges would have to be regraded and rebuilt. It would still be pretty expensive cost-wise too.
W.A.P. John
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 3:01 p.m.
With North-South Rail (WALLY) in the works, a ground level track crossing might prove to be a bad idea, especially during rush hour...
a2guy1974
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:50 p.m.
fix the road, while you're at it.
treetowncartel
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:25 p.m.
Perhaps they could just knock it down swiftly and everyone could cross it Dukes of Hazard style unitl we find out about the TIGER grant.
justwondering
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:18 p.m.
Oh, I had one other thought, but not being an engineer, perhaps one could comment. Yes, the city is asking for a lot of money to do their partial demolition. I think that would be an expensive alternative to a complete demolition. My reasoning is that selective removals would have to be done with great care to ensure that the remaining structure is not compromised any further. To me, that's a slow, careful, and deliberate process which, (and I am only guessing) costs more than just straightforward demolition.
justwondering
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 2:10 p.m.
There was absolutely no thought to the $2 million number that I threw out. But, it would have to be a heck of a lot cheaper to build a ground level intersection than a bridge. Sorry if that threw anybody.
Julie
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:57 p.m.
justwondering -- i agree, i think bridge removal should be considered. however, i doubt your $2M cost, given that they are asking for nearly a quarter of that just for this stop-gap measure.... is that $2M estimate from something you've read?
John Hritz
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:50 p.m.
The bridge removal thought is an interesting one...
Moose
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:41 p.m.
There's actually a vote on this fiasco? Who in their right mind would vote against anything to get this project underway. Sorry, I forgot who we're dealing with here.
treetowncartel
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:18 p.m.
If he went higher he would have to leave the U of m position. Who in their right mind would do that? They are the only employer in Michigan doing a 2 to 1 match on 401ks, with taxpayer money for that matter.
justwondering
Fri, Oct 16, 2009 : 1:06 p.m.
I agree that the bridge doesn't look very good. But why do you need a bridge at all? Why can't the grade be put back to its original state and just have a plain old railroad track crossing similar to other areas downtown? I don't see anything wrong with a lighted intersection where Stadium and State would cross. It seems to me that solution would cost closer to $2 million and not $20 million that could be used elsewhere.