viewpoint - Bridge

Bridge or No Bridge
By John Van Dusen, Publisher

Are we focusing on the real problem?

How many options are there to solve the problem?

How long a time frame should the solution consider?

What are the short, intermediate and long-term costs for each solution?

Define the elements of the problem

Is it the one, southbound lane of the East Ave. bridge lost - or - the ability to get vehicles/people across the canal?
During what hours of the day is it a problem?
Of what duration is each problem period?
Where (north, south, east or west) are vehicles going during periods of congestion?

Develop all potential solutions and costs

Closing the East Ave. bridge was long anticipated. Does the design for the new Clinton St. bridge incorporate increased traffic flow, offsetting the closing of the East Ave. bridge?
If not, can/should that design be changed to accommodate more traffic? What would the added costs be? How would those costs compare to short- and long-term costs of opening East Ave.? Does it make more sense to have that capacity on a brand new bridge rather than a bridge that is already over 80 years old?
Can congestion be reduced by staggering work arrival/departure times by department & company until Clinton St. bridge is completed?
Are there other ways/places to move vehicles across the canal such as the Stebbins Road bridge via an extended West Shore Blvd.? What are the costs associated with these sites? Do the people we are moving even want to be in downtown Newark?

Ask the obvious questions

DOT decided the East Ave. bridge should not be rehabilitated or replaced, why? Should this information be part of the local decision making process?
The state insists Newark take ownership of the bridge - why? What do they know that we should be considering?
The bridge was built in 1913. How much more useful life does the bridge have? Are bridges more costly to maintain in their declining years? What are the anticipated annual costs of repair/upkeep? How long can its useful life be extended?
Newark deals daily with water, sewer and street maintenance but not bridge maintenance. We have no bridge engineer for structural evaluation and planning structural maintenance & repairs. We have no equipment to cost-effectively work over and under the bridge. Evaluation and care of one bridge should not be as cost-effective for Newark as a group of bridges is for DOT. The DOT Regional Director's ballpark estimate of replacement cost for East Ave. was $1.5 million. The total village assessment is $233 million. It would cost each village taxpayer over $6 per thousand to replace that bridge. This would be strictly a local cost, no longer shared by all taxpayers in the state.
Bonding for replacement cost would add about 75% more to the cost of the bridge (don't nit-pick the exact dollars, look at the concept).
Providing a capital fund set aside (to avoid bonding costs) over, say, ten years would be $.64 per thousand. The current administration campaigned long and hard on the charge that the previous administration spent the capital reserve to a dangerously low level, in order to hold down property taxes. Can politicians be trusted not to raid a set aside fund of up to 38% of the total village budget?

When local citizens signed petitions asking the Village Board to "take all necessary action to reopen and maintain the East Ave. bridge," is this really what they meant?

Placement of the East Ave. bridge close to the Main St. bridge was proper for the horse & buggy pace of 1913. Today's vehicles move much faster and there are many more of them. The short distance between bridges, which was an asset then, is now part of the traffic congestion problem. Prior to its closing, people would cross the East Ave. bridge in peak traffic turning west (right). All was fine until they reached the Main St. light which has a limit on how much traffic it can handle quickly. Cars then would back up to East Ave., around the corner and halt traffic coming across the bridge. At that point the bridge could not even get people wanting to go south or east across the canal. The bridges are too close together to efficiently move traffic at today's peak loads. This leads one to conclude that the real problem is moving vehicles across the canal, not the closing of the bridge. Reopening the bridge would not solve the problem. It would appear to help some, but any increase in traffic during peak load will make the problem worse again. Thus, we would still have a problem in search of a long-term solution.

If Newark accepts ownership of the bridge, it alters the responsibility, for moving people/vehicles across this State waterway, from being totally a State responsibility with the expense paid by all State taxpayers. If $800,000 of our money (regardless of which pocket) is going to be spent, do we not have a responsibility to do the research to get the best long-term solution. All the homework should be done. All the information should be shared with the community before any decision is made. This is a large decision with multi-generational implications. It involves a large number of dollars, both short- and long-term. We should expect a calm, reasoned decision, after much public discussion, driven by fully researched facts.

Background informtion . . .