some progress

The following three news articles will bring you up to date on some of what has been going on in meetings for the past month, in addition to that which is on the Milton-Madison Bridge site. The results of the August 13th PAG meeting describe the proposed action to do a superstructure replacement with minimal approaches, and applying for a TIGER grant. Nothing’s a done deal until it’s a done deal, but this is what has been going on. I decided to hold off on saying anything until a few news articles came out, because this blog isn’t just about the bridge.

Excerpts from the Madison Courier: Bridge to Use Existing Piers :

“The option to build on the existing piers was jumped ahead of other route possibilities that consultants have been studying because of the possibility of stimulus funds, the bridge advisory group was told at a packed meeting at Milton Baptist Church in Milton, Ky. The decision to move forward with one option this early in the bridge replacement process was a surprise.

An application for the stimulus funds must be submitted by Sept. 15. The announcement of recipients of the funds will be in January 2010. The stimulus funds would pay most of the costs, but Indiana and Kentucky each would pay a share.

The option, as well as the other options that are still under consideration in case a grant is not received.”

 Milton-Madison Bridge consultants announce KYTC, INDOT apply for stimulus funds to replace Milton-Madison bridge. 

 Another excerpt from the Madison Courier:  Bridge’s Impact on Historic Property Studied :

 

“Consultants for the Madison-Milton bridge project met with historic preservation experts for two days this week to examine how historic district properties might be impacted by the construction of a new bridge.The group was given a list of historic properties that could be adversely affected by construction of a bridge (superstructure is built on the existing piers). Group members came up with measures to reduce, eliminate or resolve each separate adverse effect. The results of their work will be listed in a document that will be considered by both states and the state historic preservation offices in Indiana and Kentucky.

 

Negative impacts included physical destruction, inconsistent alterations, relocation of properties, a change in character of the properties, incompatible visual elements, neglect of properties and transfer, and lease or sale of properties without preservation.”

 

 Milton-Madison bridge project gives some FAQs on their site.

 

A few excerpts from Can Milton, Madison survive a longterm bridge closure? (a Roundabout article):

 

“Business owners on both sides of the Ohio River are worried that a recent proposal by the bridge study group to use the existing piers for a new bridge superstructure rather than construct a totally new bridge will destroy the local economy.”

 

Further…”If approved, the bridge would be closed in January 2011 for up to 12 months while a new superstructure, similar to the current one, is erected on the 80-year-old existing piers. Experts agree that the piers are capable of lasting for another 80 years.

During the superstructure replacement, construction would begin in spring 2010 with periodic lane and bridge closures. In January 2011, the bridge would be closed completely for up to 12 months while the old superstructure is removed and the new one erected. Two ferries would shuttle commuters back and forth and operate 24-hours a day. The ferry service would be free – paid for through the grant.”

“Several PAG members questioned why the grant money couldn’t be used to fund one of the alternatives for a new bridge alignment. Carr said time and right-of-way acquisitions and relocation are factors against the grant money being used for a new bridge. He also said that right-of-way issues can take years to resolve. In the meantime, the bridge continues to deteriorate at a pace faster than was originally thought.”

Many are concerned that this whole process has been too rushed while others are doing whatever they can to do the best they can in telescoped time to get the TIGER grant. I have heard more terminology than I can repeat as part of the 106 consulting parties; it’s been an interesting process to be part of though. I don’t know that I would want to sit through meetings like those government folks do  for a living. Of course, there are probably some like myself that get paid nothing more than the simple satisfaction of  maybe helping a neighborhood remain intact (plus lots of research and a history blog maybe).  

 

 All of the alternatives are still open until they have TIGER money in their hot little hands and all mitigation has been settled. There’s quite a ways to go yet, so I’m sure I have more meetings to sit through before I am assured the house I presently live in will be there awhile. 

 

**See also http://mustbemadison.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/re-usable-piers/ for an update

a comment or two

This is the text in my letter to the Milton-Madison Bridge folks in response to their invitation to comment on their screening report. I don’t see any reason why I can’t share it.

 

“In response to an invitation to comment on the screening report, any bridge built east of the existing bridge comes with an impact zone from the current connection at Main and Baltimore in Madison to a point east of where the bridge is planned to sit. Period. Each and every single house or business is impacted, not just one or two that is destroyed in the process of building a bridge on certain properties in the way. Roadway improvements would have to be made all the way from whatever point is furthest east to that point on Main Street where 421 and 56 meet. The existing roadway cannot accommodate a 100% increase in traffic without a major rework.

 

Using one of the maps in the screening report, Figure 2.7, the Around Milton Alternative, I show buildings I am in the process of studying and how these 150-plus-year old buildings and the neighborhood would be impacted, from the human standpoint. Just using the eight buildings I am currently studying, though there are more, there is quite an impact. Though the screening report shows no improvements on the map, I have added the yellow line where it is obvious road improvements would need to be made, and your map doesn’t extend well enough. It is interesting in that the report states, “This corridor connects to bicycle/pedestrian facilities in Madison”. Yes, there is an existing sidewalk without a buffer to the roadway, which is woefully inept to handle increased traffic.

Putting the bridge in the middle of a neighborhood that has existed for over 150 years is a shame. If the project is willing to go this far east then another block east should be considered, where there are no houses, at the end of Vaughn in Madison.

 

On the Tiber Creek alternative 9/10b, the east approach is showing a wide swath right through the neighborhood, known as the Brushfield subdivision. We’ve been here a while. Three of the buildings represented by pink dots are on the 1854 map, with one of those shown as a public school building. It is within the area of impact.

 

According to the screen report, “The Canip Creek Alternatives (Alternatives 11/12) … move far enough east to avoid development in both communities and to connect to SR 56 beyond the National Historic Landmark boundary.”

 

To some extent, that statement is true. If you are going to add the traffic to this end of town, you may as well go a little further east where there are no houses.

 

Below is your Canip Creek map with the addition of showing the location of those same eight houses I am working with in my study at the present. Be it known at some point all the homes and businesses east of Ferry are part of my study. No one can tell me that the roadway does not need to be reworked.

Under section 5.4.2 Mobility and Connectivity, the report mentions that though there is a minor increase on the travel distance between intersections; widening the bridge and reducing the number of stop controlled intersections would likely lead to a decrease in travel times as speeds increase. Let me tell you, speed is not conducive to safety, and this has been an issue on this side of the river for quite a while. I’m sorry, you flunked out on purpose number 3 with both of these alternatives on this side of the river. Drivers already go 45 to 50 mph in the 30 mph zone here. There cannot be enough measures to create a safer walkway when adding a 100% traffic burden. Isn’t safety part of the overall picture here? It (a bridge in the neighborhood) leads to a decreased quality of life.

 

Quality of life is one of the measures here as well. There isn’t much quality to a quiet 150 plus year old neighborhood to have a bridge inserted in the middle of it. The “improved link to SR 56 in Indiana would remove truck traffic from Baltimore and 2nd Streets” but puts the whole burden of traffic to the east, going through a very old neighborhood, and still, the entire traffic route must go through that section of downtown where it connects to 421. So every time you say it “remove(s) truck traffic from Baltimore and 2nd Streets”, please add that the traffic is added elsewhere…we do exist on this end.

 

If you wish to consider “Improvements to the approaches in either state may be designed to create a gateway into the communities”, do so where you don’t have to destroy people’s homes. The falcons on the existing bridge can find a home easier than those who would be displaced by such a neighborhood infringement. If Jaycee Park users have to move on down to the new Bicentennial Park for a year, that is easier than relocating a couple of 80 to 90-year old long-time residents, who would be seriously impacted by watching their neighborhood destroyed or at least split in two.

 

Under section 5.5.3 Sensitivity to Local Resources, the Key West Shrimp House is mentioned, but it is not an historic property as listed on the Landmark designation, although it may be listed on the inventory for the district, as are the other properties in this area . People want to save it because it is a tourist attraction. If you tear the neighborhood in half there is not much opportunity for any other attractions based upon the history of the neighborhood. The “viewshed” is not very good from anyone’s back window. The socio-economics of those who live on the Indiana side will not be improved because the bridge location “provide(s) an opportunity to incorporate gateway treatments and street scape elements alongside the roadway”. This project cannot include enough trees and barriers to reduce the noise that construction will entail in an area where it has been so quiet, nor the impact that the future traffic will make with noise and pollution.

 

If the hilltop connection were that big a deal, why not put the bridge closer to the existing 421 roadway at Jefferson? Isn’t that why it was widened? If making a connection closer to School Hollow or Lonesome Hollow is of consideration, why not build the bridge there now and get some of the prep work done? Are we talking 50 years from now making that connection or two or three years from now?

 

According to the report, “The Tiber Creek Alternative (Alternative 9/10) does not include a hilltop connection; however, future projects providing this connection could be feasible using School Hollow or Lonesome Hollow so that the alignment takes advantage of the natural terrain to minimize earthwork. The Canip Creek Alternative (Alternative 11/12) does not include a hilltop connection. However a future project for connection could be feasible up School Hollow or Lonesome Hollow that takes advantage of the natural terrain to minimize earthwork.” Apparently the hilltop connection really isn’t a priority, so why include that as a benefit?

 

If a bridge is going to be built this far east, going the extra ½ mile to avoid all houses and create a whole new set of possibilities for tourism, a beautiful gateway, access to the hilltop etc., opens up by putting the landing area at the end of Vaughn on the Indiana side, leaving a whole lot of wiggle room on the Milton side. At the end of Vaughn one can still see the old bridge area, thus it makes a wonderful viewshed from either side.

 

Using your map, I drew a large triangle with the point being at the end of Vaughn Drive on the Indiana side, giving a large area of possibilities on the Milton side. Has this been considered as a possibility, or is it to late to look at saving people’s homes and livelihood? I would suggest looking at this alternative a little differently, and consider the human component as a priority.

 

As you can see, questions remain as to why the project has been limited to two options within a single block on the Indiana side, with so little information having been presented.

 

** I didn’t even get started as to why the golf course on the west side of town wasn’t considered as a go through.

 By the way…for those who do not know where Lonesome Hollow sits, look at the photos below, and tell me it makes more sense to put a highway up the hill when there already is one to the west of the current bridge site. It will never happen, so why is that even added to the mix? If that WAS realistic, put the bridge that far east.

 

**Unfortunately, unless access to the hilltop (using eastern alternatives) was done up through the hollow at the same time the road improvements from the point of landing all the way through the east side and downtown would be impacting approximately a hundred houses. Everyone would lose something due to the widening of the road. There is no easy answer.

5% of 30%

5% of 30% is not my statistic, but it works for the moment. I decided to look over one of the pdf’s online for the Milton-Madison Bridge, today. The particular page of interest reads:

4.1.3 Origin-Destination Survey (http://www.miltonmadisonbridge.com/pdf/PN-ND-Exec-Summ.pdf)

The third piece of the data collection effort for the Milton-Madison Bridge Project was an origin destination (O-D) study. As part of this effort, license plate numbers of motorists crossing the bridge into Indiana were recorded. Various other checkpoints were set up around Madison to collect license plate data, making it possible for analysts to determine where vehicles crossing the bridge exited the local transportation network.

The O-D study took place on Wednesday, August 20, 2008. Two person teams set up at six locations to record license plate numbers for three time periods: morning (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), midday (10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.), and afternoon (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Teams were stationed at (shown by the arrows on Figure 4.6):

• The US 421 bridge;

• US 421 at the intersection with SR 62;

• SR 56 east of Ferry Street;

• SR 56 in front of the IKE power plant;

• SR 7 north of the intersection with SR 56; and

• SR 7 north of the intersection with SR 62.

The three class system used in the turning movement counts was also applied during the O-D study, designating vehicles as cars, light trucks, or heavy trucks. When possible, teams took note of trucking company information as well.

In the eight-hour period, a total of 2,800 vehicles were observed crossing the bridge into Indiana. Of these, 2,600 vehicles had identifiable license plates and were recorded for analysis purposes. Analysts recorded 96% cars, 2% light trucks, and 2% heavy trucks crossing the bridge. Figure 4.7 provides a summary of this information. (not included in my post)

An analysis of the origin and destination data indicates that approximately 70% of the bridge traffic is destined for Madison with the remaining (approximately 30%) traveling outside of Madison. Specifically:

• 30% of the bridge traffic travels outside of Madison

o 13% travel to/from the west on SR-56

o 6% travel to/from the north on SR-7

o 5% travel to/from north on US-421

o 1% travel to/from the east on SR-62

o 5% travel to/from the east on SR-56

• 25% of the bridge traffic travels to upper Madison

• 45% of the bridge traffic travels to lower Madison

The truck traffic on the bridge, however does not follow the same pattern as total vehicles with 45% of truck traffic traveling outside of Madison and 55% destined for Madison. Specifically:

• 45% of the bridge truck traffic travels outside of Madison

o 22% travel to/from the west on SR-56

o 2% travel to/from the north on SR-7

o 16% travel to/from north on US-421

o 0% travel to/from the east on SR-62

o 5% travel to/from the east on SR-56

• 30% of the bridge truck traffic travels to upper Madison

• 25% of the bridge truck traffic travels to lower Madison

 If  only 5% of the 30% of traffic destined for outside of Madison uses SR56 why do we need the bridge on the east side of town?