|
What is the Cost?
-
The City is planning to spend $20 Million
to replace the East Stadium Bridges.
-
The City has No Idea how much it would
cost to install an at grade road, although they have acknowledged it would
be cheaper.
-
How much would the city save by installing an At Grade Road? Nobody
knows. But, this did not stop the council from approving the
project. Based on what other states spend per mile for Roads, Ann
Arbor could save over $10 Million Dollars
with an At Grade Road.
-
The Opinion Letter piles on layers of
Societal Costs for an At Grade Road, but Does Not
List the Societal Costs associated with the Bridge. Ann
Arbor needs more than an opinion letter that determines the cost, it
requires a formal study.
-
The citizens at least deserve the courtesy of a formal study that
identifies the most cost effective way to resolve the East Stadium Bridge
project.
-
By waiting for so long, hoping for funds from Federal and State Sources,
the city is now putting band-aid after band-aid on the Bridge,
Wasting Millions on Temporary Repairs and
fixes.
Further Detail...
Cost "Negatives" - as identified by the City - of "No
Bridges"
-
$250,000 per
year in crashes due to a new Stop Light at Stadium and State Street in
lieu of a bridge. This was totaled to a $7.4 million present net
worth, and then used to as part of the cost comparison for building a
bridge. But... The Study Leaves
out savings of eliminating 3 to 4 Stoplights! ($20 Million in Savings????)
Frankly, this is hypothetical
cost that should not be used to justify building a bridge for State Street
and Stadium. Nowhere in our traffic calming initiative does the city
discuss building bridges over intersections to ease traffic flow.
The cost is an accepted cost by society. If not, we'd have bridges
at every major stop light in the city. Stadium and Jackson, as well
as Huron and Washtenaw were just upgraded, and there was no mention of
building bridges to save these hypothetical costs.
However, if the report is
going to use this as justification for not building a bridge, then how
about an equal amount of time and effort on Stop Lights that could be
eliminated.
1. Stimpson and State would
not longer need to be regulated by a Stop Light. Stimpson is used as
a cut through because people are unable to turn from Stadium directly onto
State Street.
2. Stimpson and Industrial
would no longer need a Stop Light for the same reasons as above.
3. Stadium and
Industrial could also have the stop light removed. Again, this Stop
Light primarily serves to allow traffic who want to find State Street to
turn right or left. Now, it would be similar to other streets along
Stadium. The 2 East / West neighborhood streets could be turned into
a dead end to eliminate the 6 way intersection, also help create a safer /
quieter neighborhood.
4. You could even
stretch the envelope to include the Stop Light at Granger, used by people
cutting through the neighborhood to find State Street or those just coming
from it. This could become a typical, quite residential street with
people not having to cut through any more.
Well, eliminating 3
stoplights should put the yearly crash savings well over $!0 million.
4 might even push the savings up to $20! Heck, since we are all
struggling to save, how about we cut all stop lights in the State by 50
percent. We'd probably save billions. But then again, probably
not. Which is exactly the problem with using hypothetical costs.
There are so many other hypothetical costs that could be added, when do
you stop? Instead, the study needs a brick and mortar cost analysis
- the real cost.
-
$500,000 per
year in energy costs due to a new Stop Light at Stadium and State Street
in lieu of a bridge. This was totaled to a $14.8 million present net
worth, and then used to as part of the cost comparison for building a
bridge. But... The Study Leaves
out savings of eliminating 3 to 4 Stoplights, cut throughs, and Stop
Signs! ($30 Million in Savings????)
Another hypothetical cost
that should not be used to justify building a bridge for State Street and
Stadium. Sure, people in Ann Arbor like to think they are saving the
environment and are generally a leftist bunch. Apparently, the
leftist feeling in Ann Arbor is so strong that they follow the "Three
Lefts makes a Right" philosophy - (currently, to turn right from State to
Stadium, you have to take a Left on Stimpson, Take a Left on Industrial,
and Take a Left on Stadium!!!). How about getting some of the
"Opinion" out of the opinion letter and also discuss the energy savings
associated with NOT building the bridges as well:
1. The Opinion letter
leaves out the gas being wasted as people have to cut through the
neighborhoods and wait in traffic for each turn. Turn from State,
onto Granger or Stimpson, wait at a light, then onto Packard or
Industrial, wait at a light, then onto Stadium (Red Lines). Sounds
like a lot of wasted gas - more than just sitting at one stop light.
Must be $20 million here.
2. Or, how about
Golden and Park, with their stop signs, wasting gas as people stop and
start, cutting through the neighborhood (Yellow Lines). Perhaps a
little less wasteful than a Stop Light. Make it $10 million.
Well, look at that. $30
million in savings right there. Where are the savings? Well,
not really anywhere. People won't get a check in the mail. But
- it sure sounds great. Which is exactly the problem with the
"opinion letter." It sounds great that building the bridge will save
almost $14 million in gas, but is it real? And, if it is, how about
the gas being wasted because the bridge exists. That might make the
letter a bit more factual.
|