Public weighs in on East Stadium bridges replacement plan
No one argued the need to replace the East Stadium Boulevard bridges over State Street and the Ann Arbor railroad tracks tonight during the first of two public meetings on the project.
But there were plenty of questions about how to get it done with the least disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and how to fund the $23 million project.
About 50 people attended the session, held by the city of Ann Arbor in the Pioneer High School cafeteria. Posters showing the plans and a PowerPoint presentation were followed by small-group question-and-answer sessions.
Senior project manager Mike Nearing said the temporary fix of the bridge over State Street, which was approved by the City Council on Oct. 19, is on track to begin Nov. 15 and will last two or three days.
But the gap in the pavement that the work will create to prevent chunks of concrete from falling off will be there until construction to replace the bridges begins, he added. That phase won't begin until November 2010, and could last until July 2012, according to a preliminary timeline presented tonight.
Many at the meeting were concerned about the possibility of traffic through their neighborhoods during construction.
Matt Toschlog, who lives nearby, said the detour was his only real concern.
"My kids walk to school," he said.
On the whole, Toschlog said he was happy the crumbling bridge would be replaced.
"I'd just like to see the full project get done," he said.
Bob Berarducci and Paula Malone, neighbors on Park Place, also wanted information on possible detours.
"I have no problem with the project, I'm just a little concerned about the traffic," Berarducci said.
"It has to happen, no doubt about that," Malone said.
The project will also involve some features neighbors found positive, such as closing off access from Rose and White streets to Stadium Boulevard to create an easier pedestrian path between two sections of Rose-White park. Also, the deck of the new bridge over State would be 19 feet wider than the current one to accommodate a larger sidewalk and bike lanes.
But funding is an unresolved issue. The entire project would cost $23 million, according to information provided at the meeting, including $5.6 million for the construction of the two bridges, $8.9 million to rebuild retaining walls and approach roads, $2.26 million for design and $4 million for construction engineering and inspection.
The city has applied for $21 million of federal stimulus money, Nearing said, and expects to hear back on that request in February. The project also has received support from U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn.
The best-case funding scenario presented at the meeting involves the city receiving that money and contributing $2 million itself. The worst case - with zero federal or state money and the entire funding coming from the city's road millage - would mean a suspension of all repaving projects until 2013, officials said.
City planners also showed preliminary plans for an at-grade intersection in response to multiple suggestions from citizens to simply eliminate the bridges. But safety issues, resistance from the railroad company and state transportation officials, and right-of-way issues on State Street, made the idea unworkable. The geometry of an intersection there would also be dangerous, Nearing said, with the city's traffic modeling showing more than 20 accidents per year.
A second public meeting is scheduled for Dec. 1 at 6:30 p.m., also at Pioneer High School.
Freelance reporter Dan Meisler can be reached at danmeisler@gmail.com.
Comments
Mumbambu, Esq.
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 2:09 p.m.
I think that the City should have done an at grade crossing for the Broadway bridges instead of rebuilding them...then everyone that is complaining could drive into the crossing to see how well it would work.
Old Salt
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 1:29 p.m.
Golly, I wonder why the bridge project will not begin until November of 2010 but then I guess if they started earlier like in the spring or summer it would interfere with the Michigan football games and we cannot have that, Priorities you know
uawisok
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 10:49 a.m.
Waste of current and future tax dollars...eliminate the bridge and make it a intersection with State Street again....all this for a train track that isn't used..LOL
Thick Candy Shell
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 10:13 a.m.
wish the at grade crossing issue would stop. It will never happen. The AARR owns the Right-of-Way and is not going to agree to it. Even if they did, it is not as simple as everyone suggest. 5 or 6 lanes of traffic crossing 3 tracks is a major maintenance issue which would be fully City responsibility. The cost of just the traffic signal changes and the rail signal would probably exceed $1,000,000. Currently there are not many trains, normally 2 per day, but rail traffic will be increasing as the cost of fuel continues to rise. Rail is still the cheapest shipping method.
a2roots
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:54 a.m.
I fully believe that if the city wanted an at grade road project completed it could happen. What we have are people looking for trivial reasons to cabosh a better solution at a significantly lower cost. The planners need to get out of their tunnel. Since when are right of way issues a problem? And 20 accidents a year...give me a break. I wonder what the University's stance in this is? Bet they want a new bridge. Sure wouldn't want to go against their wishes would we...The reposibility of our elected officials and employees is to select a solution that works best for the community and maintains their fiduciary responsibility. Anything short of an at grade crossing makes a mockery of the process.
David Cahill
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:48 a.m.
Thanks for the nice words on the Broadway Bridges design, kris! I was on the Citizens Advisory Committee for that project, and am glad it worked out so well.
kris
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:35 a.m.
If new bridges are built (and I think that they will be), I hope that they are as beautiful as the Broadway bridge. Every time I drive over that bridge I get a sense of delight.
John Hritz
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.
If MDOT, UofM or Ann Arbor Railroad has a strong opinion against a closure/detour or conversion to an at-grade crossing, maybe they'd like to pony up some money...
Eric S
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:02 a.m.
TThe need to avoid AARR trains is a lot less now than it was then, but the need to allow State and Stadium traffic to pass each other without gridlock on football/basketball game days is as strong as ever. Those bridges have been there ever since Stadium Blvd was built in the '20s because they were thought necessary even back then. That said, it'd help Ann Arbor traffic a lot if the stadium area was better at exchanging traffic between the Main, State, Division/Fifth and Packard corridors into downtown so that those exchanges don't need to happen along small streets and through multiple stoplights as they do now. This would be the time to plan that, but I don't think the city is ready to think about anything that radical.
xmo
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:55 a.m.
Maybe we could get the money from President Obama's stash? Has anyone asked President Obama for the money yet?
leaguebus
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:53 a.m.
Tell me which is the greater problem, MDot not liking the at grade intersection, the railroad not liking the at grade intersection, twenty accidents (which does not seem like too many), other safety issues; or no street improvements in the city till 2013? The council needs to tell the engineers to finish the at grade plans and proceed with them unless the bridge money comes through. We could spend a bunch of money, ($400,000 already), to keep a bridge that is going to be torn down anyway from falling down. This makes no sense in these times in Michigan. A detour, Industrial to Eisenhower to Main seems like the only feasible route, put it in place and "git er done".
Awakened
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 5:28 a.m.
If only there had been some way to know that the roads and bridges would get older and need upkeep.....
Arboriginal
Wed, Oct 28, 2009 : 10:33 p.m.
There was no discussion of removing the bridge altogether? Really?