Let me start by saying that the bridge concept is a good one. I have long believed that an iconic bridge over US 29 has merit and has its basis in some of the earliest renderings of downtown Columbia, long before Lake Kittamaquandi was formed.
That being said, the bridge concept suffers from a few drawbacks. Primarily, the cost estimates from Bridge Columbia and Howard Hughes (both in the neighborhood of $10M-$15M) seems a bit more than most people I know think should be spent on such a project. Moreover, projects like this are viewed in a much different light than even a few years ago. Backers of this plan not only need to secure financing for the bridge, but also demonstrate how bridge maintenance and resurfacing will be paid for in the future. Federal and State funding sources are dwindling and this bridge is going to have to stand on its own. To date, no pro forma has been released to indicate how these costs will be paid.
Related to the cost is the utility provided by the proposed bridge. Some Oakland Mills residents have been pretty vocal about their need for the bridge. On the other hand, the folks in Town Center have been pretty quiet about their need for the bridge. Bridge Columbia and the Oakland Mills Village Board have both gone on record that bridge usage must be limited to pedestrians, bicycles and bus transit (with special exception for emergency vehicles). I think this ultimately hurts the Bridge Columbia movement, because it is counter to the initial premise of greater access. Said another way, the proposed bridge would provide a benefit to Oakland Mills (in the form of greater access), but would mitigate the externalities (prohibit car traffic and associated noise) from infringing on their neighborhood. It’s as if someone had front row seats to a Rolling Stones concert, but say that they would only go if they didn’t play so loud.
Beyond that, many of the justifications offered seem to fall on their own internal logic. Most are problematic because it appears to be difficult to integrate the bridge with any current (or planned) transit system. For instance, a recent Baltimore Sun article quoted Bridge Columbia proponent Frank Gottenmoeller, “According to Gottemoeller, it currently takes anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes to travel from Oakland Mills to Town Center by car or bus. With the new bridge, Gottenmoeller estimates it would take buses two minutes.”
Now, I don’t dispute Mr. Gottenmoeller’s assertion that the bus trip would be only two minutes; however, in order for the bus over the new bridge to be faster than today, the buses would have to leave on a pretty heavy schedule (< 10 minute intervals). Currently, I am not aware of any bus system in Maryland that operates on 10 minute headways (maybe Ocean City, in season?). In addition, Mr. Gottenmoeller does not take into account the time travelled between a residence and the bus station. This would also add on minutes in excess of the time travel currently available. This is not to say it is a bad idea, but consideration should be given to the residents of Oakland Mills and their travel time calculus. “Should I drive over to the lakefront in ten minutes, or should I make my way to the bus stop and arrive later?”
Getting back to Marshmallow Man and his post on The 53, he provides several good ideas that the bridge would facilitate, but they center mostly on special events (pub crawls, road races, triathlons). He also puts forth the idea of a bus connector service that bypasses Broken Land Parkway. Which begs the question, “Why ride a bus down Broken Land Parkway, when you can enjoy the (future) speed bumps on Thunder HIll Road with your friends?”
Lastly, the one thing a new bridge promises that cannot be refuted on any level is that it would allow residents of Oakland Mills to travel on foot or bike to Town Center without fear. This is the basic premise for a new bridge. If the money can be worked out to achieve this one goal, the bridge is a good idea. hocoblogs@@@