Taking the Road Less Traveled to a Fact-Based Debate About the Hoan Bridge

The rhetoric in the Hoan Bridge debate continues to gain speed. Will the facts keep pace?

“City of Milwaukee Attempts to Delay Re-Decking of Hoan Bridge” screams the most recent press release from Milwaukee County Board Supervisor Patricia Jursik and State Rep. Christine Sinicki. You can read it here.

The release refers to a November letter from Milwaukee Department of Public Works Commissioner Jeffrey Mantes to Wisconsin Department of Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi. In it, he asks for an “alternatives analysis” to simply re-decking the bridge.

From the letter:

The rehab work for the Hoan Bridge and Lake Interchange are quickly becoming critical and you have directed Wisconsin Department of Transportation staff to begin engineering so that such work could begin in as early as 2011. However, it is also our understanding that you remain open to conducting an alternatives analysis that would help determine the most cost effective long term transportation improvement. … We are supportive of this approach.

Mantes then asks for the state to study 10 key areas related to the Hoan project, answering lingering and vital questions about how potential alternatives could impact economic development, port operations, traffic and other key areas.

Now, I see nothing wrong with the request, as I said in my earlier post about this.

After all, what is wrong with gaining all the facts — and options — before making up your mind on a project that could cost more than $200 million? What is wrong with keeping an open mind until you have all the necessary questions answered? Is this an “arrogant” request?

Jursik seems to say so in her press release, where she says:

In spite of overwhelming support for the Hoan within the larger community and the transportation corridor the Hoan supports, this letter from the City of Milwaukee once again shows the arrogance and persistence of those who seek to delay this project.

Arrogance? I hate to think I’m arrogant in wanting more facts.

Either way, it’s overly harsh, super-heated words like that that are needlessly polarizing this debate. While I respect the energy and point of view of Jursik and the Save the Hoan Coalition — and the more than 8,000 who signed petitions to advance the effort — I truly hope the debate eventually moves from loud, angry, ugly rhetoric to facts. 

Indeed, re-decking may indeed be the long-term answer for the Hoan. But I am not ready to “abandon” (using a word from the Jursik release above) all alternatives when it comes to this project. It’s simply too early to do so.

My position has not changed on this. I want, demand even, a strong and vital connection between the South Shore and downtown. The Hoan Bridge in its current state certainly provides that. I just wonder if we can do it better.

That’s why I want a study — and calmer debate — when it comes to this issue. I want facts. I hope you do too.