A Bridge Too Far-Fetched

I didn’t know Milwaukee had so much money! So much, in fact, it’s like those mega-rich folks who do or buy things without ever looking at the price tag.

That’s what seems to be going on with the resurrected idea to remove/replace the Daniel Hoan Memorial Bridge with a neo-drawbridge.

This is the proposal of Milwaukee City Alderman Bob Bauman, according to Milwaukee County Supervisor Patricia Jursik’s Journal Sentinel June 28 op-ed piece. It is being brought back from last year when a report the Wisconsin Department of Transportation commissioned, apparently in secret—at least none of the elected officials, including State Senator and Senate Transportation Committee Chair Jeff Plale,  who represent the southside and points beyond, residents of which would be the most impacted by such a move knew anything about it—which recommended that the Hoan Bridge be torn down. Part of the rationale at the time was that re-decking the bridge would cost upwards of $200 million, so if it cost that much to repair, why not just tear it down and start over it.

One of the problems with Bauman’s idea, which is now in the form of a Milwaukee Common Council resolution “relating to the design, configuration and elevation of a future replacement for the Hoan Bridge,” dated July 7—yep, Tuesday—is that there is no estimated cost available related to such a project—or at least none that the hatchers of the plan have shared with anyone who might want to question or oppose it.

And questions abound.

One is that elephant in the room. The cost. (The roof on my house will need replacing within a year or two at a cost I shudder to think about. The house also has water leakage in the basement during heavy rainfalls. Last fall a woodpecker started whacking at the upper level wood siding making mwonder about the possibility of termites And a redwood deck off the family room would look much nicer and arguably be more serviceable than the current concrete slab of a patio. So should I just tear the house down and build a new one? Talk about shuddering!) So how much would taxpayers be on the hook for a totally new bridge—one that would include reconfiguring the terminus intersections and possibly lead to the loss of some federal funding?

Another question is traffic. The proposed smaller, lower bridge—some 85 feet lower, in order to accommodate shipping from Lake Michigan into the Port of Milwaukee and back out—would have to include a ‘lift’ component. This is the modern-day euphemism for what used to be called a “draw bridge.” You know, like what used to be raised and lowered over a castle moat. Even though the proposal says that, “Bridge openings must be limited to non-peak traffic periods, except in emergencies,” not defined is what would constitute an “emergency” or what hours “peak traffic periods” include. So, the “emergencies/non-peak” contingencies seem pretty fudge-able.

And what about the “emergencies” of motorists who might want to use the new “improved” lift bridge during “non-peak” traffic periods? Will bridge users have to factor in some unknown amount of extra time to allow for a possible “lift” during their trip for an incoming or outgoing water vessel too big to clear the un-lifted bridge?

Has a shipping-traffic study been done? How many times each day would vessels too tall to clear the 40-feet-high un-lifted bridge be traversing back and forth between Lake Michigan and the Port of Milwaukee?

What about the nouveau mantra of “Go Green” and concern about “carbon footprints”? Surely having dozens if not hundreds of the estimated 40,000 gasoline/diesel-fueled internal combustion-engine vehicles that use the bridge every day idling for however long it would take for the traffic-barrier gates on the new “improved” lift bridge to be lowered, the movable section of the bridge be raised, a lumbering freighter ship to creep through at—what, all of three miles an hour?—the “lifted” bridge to be lowered and the traffic-barrier gates to be raised would contribute an unknown quantity of pollutants into the air everyone, including Ald. Bauman, has to breathe. And how does that square with efforts of other publicly funded agencies to rid the air of said pollutants? And has an environmental impact study been done to determine the tonnage of pollutants said idling vehicles would be spewing into the air? And how much would that study cost? And just how thrilled would people who live and travel near the bridge termini love having lifted-bridge-stalled traffic backing up on their streets.

Will a shipping-traffic schedule be published for bridge users or potential bridge users to refer to before deciding when to make their trips or to plan for an alternate route or will it just be a surprise like driving on a street with a railroad crossing when you’re already late for an appointment only to be greeted with that dreaded “ding, ding, ding, ding, ding” as the crossing arms glide down?

One of the seven terrific reasons posited last fall for replacing the Hoan was that the HNTB “estimates that more than 500 acres under and around the current bridge could be opened for construction of condos, commercial buildings, parks and a marina, totaling more than $5.7 billion in value.”

That caused me to snort so hard I had to grab a tissue. Heck, public budgets already can’t support or maintain the parks we already have! To wit, the constant and relentless erosion of public funding for parks that has been endemic during the seven-plus years I’ve lived in South Milwaukee. So why on Earth would anyone propose creating more?

Building more condos, creating more commercial space and opening up water space for another marina might float during flush times. But in the midst of this year-and-a-half old wealth-stripping, American dream-dashing recession that has bankrupted personal and public economies and created a huge excess of housing stock, gaping storefronts of empty commercial space and left downsized or recently unemployed people desperate to sell their private yachts might not be the best time to promote such attractive amenities.

Concern has also been voiced about:

(1) The possible soil contamination from toxins left by former industrial operations under and around the current bridge. Have soil studies been conducted to determine if the land under and around the bridge is usable for residential and park uses? How much would such a study cost?

(2) The foul odors from the neighboring sewage-treatment plant, with one pundit questioning, “who would want to live next to that 'perfume' factory?”

An aspect of the tear-down/rebuild proposal is integrate the lower bridge terminus with a street grid system. “Cost is something to consider,” opined UrbanMilwaukee.com writer Jeramey Jannene in his June 24 piece, “and dropping the bridge to an intersection at the north end would likely mean the loss of the Interstate designation and some amount of federal funding.”

That looks like yet another exhibit for the case that Milwaukee—or would that be the State of Wisconsin—has more money than it knows what to do with, given that either or both can afford to snub federal funds.

It also raises the question of, if our public transportation agencies are so flush, why are our public transit systems being squeezed so relentlessly and fares constantly raised? And why can’t we afford high-speed rail?

Then there is the Metro Milwaukee Association of Commerce, which has weighed in by asking Gov. Doyle to initiate a study—and what would the price tag for that be?—on how to change the Hoan.  

In my former life as a newspaper reporter and editor a useful question in trying to understand the motivation for people’s—especially politicians and other public officials—actions and decisions was to “follow the money.” That might be a good thing to do here.

Rather than improving anything, replacing the Hoan with a lift bridge seems singularly regressive. It will result in more snarled traffic and more motorists’ flared tempers and elevated blood pressure. It will create more air pollution. It will increase the payroll of whichever agency will have to staff the lift-bridge monitor/operator in the form of added annual salary and benefits for whatever public agency becomes responsible for funding the new personnel. Oh, that cost hasn’t been factored into the price of the new “improved” bridge either?

I must admit that the rather arrogant attitude voiced in the June 24 UrbanMilwaukee.com piece that “the bridge serves primarily Bay View, St. Francis, and other southside residents looking to enter downtown and nearby neighborhoods. It likewise provides access for individuals downtown looking to get to the airport,” did get under my skin. I can guarantee that a whole lot of those 40,000 daily trips across the bridge do not originate in Bay View, St. Francis and other southside residences. It’s my guess that many of Bauman’s constituents—and perhaps even the alderman himself—would find themselves swearing and watching precious minutes tick by as they wait for the glacial movements of traffic gates, bridge lifting, ship chugging, etc., as the departure time of their flight at Mitchell International Airport grows precariously closer and closer.

Just who would benefit from this retrograde proposal?  Certainly not the folks who live south of the bridge or those who live north and like to use the bridge to get to important places, such as the airport. And certainly not the taxpayers who will get stuck with the bill, however high that would turn out to be.