|You have plenty of time to take photos...|
First, you have the costs of building the bridge. The river is about 250m across and a bridge with a metal-grate bed (standard here, with ice and snow) might cost $10 million (I don't really know; tell me)
Second, you have the benefits:
- Avoided costs of fuel and upkeep for the 24-hour ferry. Let's say that's $2,000 per day in summer. There's no ferry in winter, when the river's frozen.
- Avoided labor costs.* Five staff on three shifts may cost $3,600/day.
- Avoided waiting time. At peak hours, the ferry is taking 60 cars/hour across the river, with 2 people in each car. Let's call that 1,000 cars/day with 2,000 people, each of who waited 30 min @ an opportunity cost of $20/hour. That's $20,000/day.
- Avoided accidents from the ferry crashing or damaging cars or hurting staff. Then there's the risk of accidents to people driving over the river ice in winter. These numbers are available, but I'll ignore them.**
Now, we get bridge benefits of ($2,000+$3,600+$20,000)*(90 days) = $2.3 million.
Those numbers indicate that a bridge may "pay for itself" in about four years.
So why isn't there a bridge? I'd say that the obvious reason (jobs, tradition) is not as important as the problem of funding a bridge that will create benefits that are mostly non-cash, i.e., the time saved to people who do not have to wait to cross. This is an example of visible winners (ferry workers) and invisible losers (ferry passengers).
Taking time into consideration, it's possible that a bridge will be built, but I wouldn't count on it. Sadly, it's more likely that a bridge will be built AFTER a ferry accident kills someone or dumps a bunch of cars into the river -- or maybe never. Too bad.
* Labor -- and JOBS -- are COSTS. They are NOT benefits as far as projects and businesses are concerned. They ARE benefits to the workers, but the whole point of "progress" is to move labor into uses that produce net benefits. A project that has jobs but no benefits is a waste (think TSA staffing). I asked one ferry-guy "why no bridge?" and he said "because the ferry is traditional and a bridge is ugly." Those are not good explanations compared to "job for me." Also note that a bridge need not harm the environment.
** There's also some "benefit" for tourists who want to watch the ferry struggle across the river, but visitors complain about ferry delays -- their #1 complaint about visiting Dawson, according to a touring company.