Ashland Avenue Viaduct in Green Bay

[skluth]

Green Bay is looking into removing the Ashland Avenue viaduct south of Mason St. The viaduct has been around for 67 years (one more than me). The viaduct crosses a defunct railyard and the tracks have all been removed. The neighborhoods around the old railyard have been among the city's poorest since I was a kid. I'm really interested to see how this proceeds because the redevelopment here will be extremely challenging.

[SEWIGuy]

If they could tie this into the development of the coal piles site on the Fox River, it would make it more valuable.

[JREwing78]

Can the viaduct be removed and replaced with an at-grade roadway while CN still owns the railyard property?

[SEWIGuy]

They don't own the street and probably gave up the ROW when the tracks were removed.  But if not, this is pretty far into the future regardless.

[mgk920]

That railroad yard's (ex Milwaukee Road) last use was by Wisconsin Central when it was their Green Bay intermodal terminal (very busy!) in the 1990s.  CN dropped that service a couple of weeks after they took over WC in late 2001 (although that service operated at a profit for WC, t wasn't profitable /enough/ for CN's beancounters).  The land has sat unused ever since.  I'd like to see that service come back, perhaps even with a WisDOT subsidy, as it took 400-500 big rig trucks off of US/I-41, I-43 and I-94 every day (that much less wear and tear on those roads).

Mike

[skluth]

That railroad yard's (ex Milwaukee Road) last use was by Wisconsin Central when it was their Green Bay intermodal terminal (very busy!) in the 1990s.  CN dropped that service a couple of weeks after they took over WC in late 2001 (although that service operated at a profit for WC, t wasn't profitable /enough/ for CN's beancounters).  The land has sat unused ever since.  I'd like to see that service come back, perhaps even with a WisDOT subsidy, as it took 400-500 big rig trucks off of US/I-41, I-43 and I-94 every day (that much less wear and tear on those roads).

Mike

CN already has a large railyard on the NW side; the Atkinson Dr viaduct to I-43 crosses it. I'd assume much of the intermodal service moved there. Bringing back the railyard under the Ashland viaduct would be redundant.

[peterj920]

It costs $262,500 for a study? It shouldn't cost that much to make a decision. No wonder why it's so hard to build anything nowadays!

[Rothman]

It costs $262,500 for a study? It shouldn't cost that much to make a decision. No wonder why it's so hard to build anything nowadays!

That's actually on the cheaper side.

[SEWIGuy]

I didn't understand if that was the total cost of the study, or the 25% portion that Green Bay has to pay.

[The Ghostbuster]

If the Ashland Avenue Viaduct was completely removed, 5th St. and 6th St. would likely meet Ashland Avenue at at-grade intersections. Is it likely that 7th St. and 8th St. might connect with Ashland Avenue (and no longer be cul-du-sacs)?

[SEWIGuy]

If the Ashland Avenue Viaduct was completely removed, 5th St. and 6th St. would likely meet Ashland Avenue at at-grade intersections. Is it likely that 7th St. and 8th St. might connect with Ashland Avenue (and no longer be cul-du-sacs)?

I'd give you the answer, but I'd have to charge you $262,500.

[peterj920]

I saw another article saying the study can take 2.5 years on top of the cost. At that rate the Interstate System would never be where it is today! When Eisenhower signed the bill, shovels were put in the ground a year after and everything was ready to go.

And now it takes 2.5 years and over 1/4 million dollars to decide whether to tear a bridge down or not? So much for "progress."  

[The Ghostbuster]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

[mgk920]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

[Rothman]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

"Why can't we build things that cause harmful and negative environmental and economic effects anymore?"

[SEWIGuy]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

We (as in 'The USA') build a lot of great things.

[peterj920]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

"Why can't we build things that cause harmful and negative environmental and economic effects anymore?"

I'm guessing when the law came out those EIS studies took way less time than they did today. I think the environment should be taken into consideration but it shouldn't drag on for years or cost money. In this case I would think tearing a bridge down and cleaning up the former rail yard would be better for the environment. Any contaminants would be removed and there wouldn't be any runoff from a bridge and there wouldn't be any costly bridge maintenance. If anything put the $264,000 towards cleanup and fast track the project.

[SEWIGuy]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

"Why can't we build things that cause harmful and negative environmental and economic effects anymore?"

I'm guessing when the law came out those EIS studies took way less time than they did today. I think the environment should be taken into consideration but it shouldn't drag on for years or cost money. In this case I would think tearing a bridge down and cleaning up the former rail yard would be better for the environment. Any contaminants would be removed and there wouldn't be any runoff from a bridge and there wouldn't be any costly bridge maintenance. If anything put the $264,000 towards cleanup and fast track the project.

Cleaning up the former rail yard and tearing down the bridge would be better. But who is going to pay for that? The issue isn't lack of will, it's lack of resources.

The city not only has that site, but the Reiss coal piles and the proposed Shipyard site all in that area.  And a developer isn't going to touch any of those unless they are cleaned up AND can be shown how they can make a profit.  That that costs money, not only to clean up the site, but tax credits, infrastructure improvement, etc.

[peterj920]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

"Why can't we build things that cause harmful and negative environmental and economic effects anymore?"

I'm guessing when the law came out those EIS studies took way less time than they did today. I think the environment should be taken into consideration but it shouldn't drag on for years or cost money. In this case I would think tearing a bridge down and cleaning up the former rail yard would be better for the environment. Any contaminants would be removed and there wouldn't be any runoff from a bridge and there wouldn't be any costly bridge maintenance. If anything put the $264,000 towards cleanup and fast track the project.

Cleaning up the former rail yard and tearing down the bridge would be better. But who is going to pay for that? The issue isn't lack of will, it's lack of resources.

The city not only has that site, but the Reiss coal piles and the proposed Shipyard site all in that area.  And a developer isn't going to touch any of those unless they are cleaned up AND can be shown how they can make a profit.  That that costs money, not only to clean up the site, but tax credits, infrastructure improvement, etc.

I'm pretty sure tearing down the bridge and replacing  with an at grade road will be cheaper than replacing a bridge. In Milwaukee I-43 is currently replacing a bridge with an embankment for the same reason.

I know everything costs money which is why spending over $250,000 on a study is an idiotic waste of money when it could go towards design and construction.

[Rothman]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

"Why can't we build things that cause harmful and negative environmental and economic effects anymore?"

I'm guessing when the law came out those EIS studies took way less time than they did today. I think the environment should be taken into consideration but it shouldn't drag on for years or cost money. In this case I would think tearing a bridge down and cleaning up the former rail yard would be better for the environment. Any contaminants would be removed and there wouldn't be any runoff from a bridge and there wouldn't be any costly bridge maintenance. If anything put the $264,000 towards cleanup and fast track the project.

"Years or cost money..." = "If valid issues are raised, we need to hamstring the funding to correct such."

In terms of things taking years to study, the NEPA process allowed the infeasible tunnel proposal regarding I-81 in Syracuse to be studied ad absurdum and, frankly, to a great detriment of the schedule and cost of the project.  So, proponents of that idea should be thanking their lucky stars for NEPA.

We are all against NEPA...as long as it prevents the alternative we want from being implemented...

And, in terms of I-81, the actual development of the EIS went quite quickly and smoothly for a $2.25B project.  And, with the vast majority of federal-aid projects being categorical exclusions to NEPA, whining about having to consider environmental and economic issues on the minority ones that have to go through the more rigorous processes rings quite hollow.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[SEWIGuy]

That was before the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act. Now anyone wanting to propose and build something must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement among other extensive procedures that look at alternatives, weigh costs and environmental impacts, and get plenty of public and political input. Even then, it is no guarantee that a project can be approved and thus proceed to construction, due to a million possible roadblocks (such as lawsuits and NIMBYs). While all this greatly prolongs the process from conception to construction by many years, it is the only way any project can be implemented.

"Why can't we (as in 'The USA') build great things anymore?"

<sigh...>

Mike

"Why can't we build things that cause harmful and negative environmental and economic effects anymore?"

I'm guessing when the law came out those EIS studies took way less time than they did today. I think the environment should be taken into consideration but it shouldn't drag on for years or cost money. In this case I would think tearing a bridge down and cleaning up the former rail yard would be better for the environment. Any contaminants would be removed and there wouldn't be any runoff from a bridge and there wouldn't be any costly bridge maintenance. If anything put the $264,000 towards cleanup and fast track the project.

Cleaning up the former rail yard and tearing down the bridge would be better. But who is going to pay for that? The issue isn't lack of will, it's lack of resources.

The city not only has that site, but the Reiss coal piles and the proposed Shipyard site all in that area.  And a developer isn't going to touch any of those unless they are cleaned up AND can be shown how they can make a profit.  That that costs money, not only to clean up the site, but tax credits, infrastructure improvement, etc.

I'm pretty sure tearing down the bridge and replacing  with an at grade road will be cheaper than replacing a bridge. In Milwaukee I-43 is currently replacing a bridge with an embankment for the same reason.

I know everything costs money which is why spending over $250,000 on a study is an idiotic waste of money when it could go towards design and construction.

So the city should just forgo a study because peterj920 on aaroads is "pretty sure"  tearing down the bridge is the best option?

The city has a $125 million budget. This isn't that expensive and is a necessary part of the process.

[triplemultiplex]

Well it's ridiculous to lay all that cost in time and money at the feet of NEPA.  Especially when the cost of everything is so much higher than it was 60 years ago.  Not to mention 60 years of industry cozying up to the teat of public works.  Hell, the roadbuilding industry in Wisconsin just tried to run one of their own for governor.  Wouldn't have gotten much cozier than that.  But it's not just them, it's lawyers and consultants and labor unions and politicians.  There's a lot of beaks to get wet.

Can't also forget how much different the global economy is today compared to the initial outlay of the interstates.  Back then, the US was THE dominant economy in the world by a long shot with the rest of the world taking a quarter century to rebuild after WWII.  We had a surging population to go along with our booming economy so we had the resources to dump into massive infrastructure projects.  We've leveled off in the 21st Century while many others have caught up.  There's more demand for everything.  Concrete, steel, asphalt, engineers, etc.

Take away NEPA and you'd barely notice the change in cost to build anything in 2023. It's an ideological scapegoat for people who can't be bothered to look deeper into why.