House passes bridge bill

Measure could have tolls pay for work

BY PATRICK CROWLEY | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

March 6, 2008

 

FRANKFORT - A Northern Kentucky lawmaker was the only dissenting vote Wednesday as a House committee overwhelmingly passed a bill that could lead to a toll being charged on the Interstate 71/75 Brent Spence Bridge.

 

Rep. Arnold Simpson, D-Covington, voted against legislation that would establish a statewide finance authority that could borrow money and levy tolls to pay for large infrastructure such as the $3 billion Brent Spence replacement project. The bill passed the House budget committee 25-1 and now heads to the House for consideration.

 

The Courier-Journal contributed.

---

We oppose bridge toll, Covington board says

BY MIKE RUTLEDGE | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

March 6, 2008

 

COVINGTON - With some fiery language, commissioners in Northern Kentucky's largest city unanimously voiced opposition to using tolls to finance construction of a replacement for the Brent Spence Bridge.

 

"The federal government is, by failing to provide sufficient funding, abdicating its responsibility for providing a safe and adequate bridge to carry interstate traffic across the Ohio on I-75 at Cincinnati," according to the resolution approved Tuesday.

N.Ky. Chamber lobbies for toll

It's a way to get Brent Spence replaced; or should feds pay?

BY PATRICK CROWLEY | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

March 7, 2008

 

FRANKFORT - Two new efforts on Brent Spence Bridge tolls - one for, one against - were launched Thursday.

 

The Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce e-mailed its members Thursday morning, imploring them to push area lawmakers to support House Bill 689.

It seems that they have gone with option #4:

 

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/03/cincinnati-council-resolves-to-save.html

Wow that would be a 16 lane bridge.

 

New bridge just west of the existing bridge for all traffic. New double-deck bridge (2x5 lanes each direction on top) for I-75 and (2x3 lanes each direction on bottom) for I-71 and local traffic on west side of the existing Brent Spence Bridge and remove existing Brent Spence Bridge.

it is all academic, we don't have the money

it is all academic, we don't have the money

 

Lack of funding has never been a deterrent to any Federal project in the past.  We spend billions in Iraq on a routine basis that we do not have.

 

Also, and I may be repeating what has already been posted elsewhere, but I was of the understanding that if the U.S. Congress failed to meet their obligations (wouldn't that be a surprise!) and saddle the states with the construction costs of the bridge that the tolls would be collected electronically (license plate number is scanned in and you are billed for the trip(s) over the bridge).

 

  So, maybe we could build a new Brent Spence Bridge for the money we spend in Iraq in about 3 days. That's not the point. We don't have the money in the transportation budget to build the bridge, and the War Department isn't likely to share their money.

 

    I agree: it's all academic if we don't have the money.

^ Agreed, Eigth and State.  Nor should they.  Funding for everything doesn't come out of one big pot.  Also, the state shouldn't be so eager to pick up the federal government's slack on this, either.  Our politicians (Kentucky AND Ohio) should be making a stink about the lack of funding for the overdue replacement of one of the more important interstate bridges in the nation.  They should be talking this up every chance they get, and so far, I haven't heard anything about this outside of the occasional Cincinnati Enquirer article.

There is more heated debate regarding the Ohio River Bridges Project in Louisville at the moment. If tolling goes through for the mega-project and other mega-projects statewide, which will include the Brent Spence Bridge, then this could open up a way for innovative financing measures for many state projects.

You know i'm to the point to bring in Dubia workers to get this bridge built for a billion. The both states can do that and split the costs and wouldn't take 20+ years.

 

   So, maybe we could build a new Brent Spence Bridge for the money we spend in Iraq in about 3 days. That's not the point. We don't have the money in the transportation budget to build the bridge, and the War Department isn't likely to share their money.

 

    I agree: it's all academic if we don't have the money.

 

There budget is absurd!

 

Does anyone know which president warned us about the Military Industrial Complex?        .

 

The same one that gave us our present day highways and roads.

 

 

.

  So, maybe we could build a new Brent Spence Bridge for the money we spend in Iraq in about 3 days. That's not the point. We don't have the money in the transportation budget to build the bridge, and the War Department isn't likely to share their money.

 

    I agree: it's all academic if we don't have the money.

 

I repeat.  Lack of funding has never been a deterrent to any Federal project in the past.  Our government routinely spends money for projects that funding is not available for.  That's why we have a national debt.  Pick any branch of our Federal government and you will find projects that are approved and undertaken by borrowing the money to do so.  Every minute of every day the United States spends millions of dollars that it does not have.

 

If the Congressional delegation on the Kentucky side of the river is any indication of what is to come (sitting on their hands doing nothing) then the states will be building the new bridge.  The attitude of the federally elected officials is quite worrisome to me as I see this as the equivalent of placing unfunded Federal mandates on the states.  If the House and Senate members from this area were to stand up and say they wanted the money for this bridge, I would be surprised if the funding didn’t become available (even though we really don't have the money - at least the expenditure would be in the budget).

 

My comment regarding expenditures for the war was my point.  We spend money that we do not have because the Feds have decided that we will.  I apologize for using the war as an example of deficit spending. I am not trying to turn this topic into a referendum on the war.  The U.S. has only had 3 years since 1960 with a budget surplus.  Our national debt grows at a staggering rate each year.  A billion or so for a new bridge won’t even register on the radar in Washington.  Finding the funding for streetcars should be even easier.....

 

Steve Chabot has routinely made is painfully obvious that he has very concern for this region and/or his district.  You can count on the fact that he will do absolutely nothing to get funding for this project...or virtually any other for that matter.

    "We spend money that we do not have..."

 

      I'm not going to try to explain the money system, because I don't understand it all myself. I'm just saying that the transportation budget has limited funds. We can make the argument that the Brent Spence replacement is the most important project in the country, and should take priority, but every other community in the nation can make the same argument about their own bridge or infrastructure. The federal government DOES NOT have the ability to spend endlessly.

 

     

^ Well the bridge is ranked in the top 15 in the deficient bridges category and is ranked 24th in traffic congestion with over 10,000 hours of delays a year. So no, not every other community can say that.

^That and the Feds might want to keep their precious trucking corridor in tack.  Advantage I-75 won't mean crap to those truckers if they can't get across the Ohio River in a reasonable fashion.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/fall95/p95a16.htm

Routing light rail over a new bridge on the I-75 alignment means the Kentucky light rail line would be commuter-motivated and do nothing to serve Covington proper.  I don't see how any stations along the I-75 routing in Covington could attract much more business than a bus stop.

 

The I-71 & Metro Moves plan was to run light rail parallel to the C&O tracks down the center of Covington.  This alignment would have diverted significant bus ridership from TANK but even reduced bus routes would still parallel the light rail line over the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge (now that they cannot use the Suspension Bridge) in a costly labor and fuel-consuming route to downtown Cincinnati.  A subway tunnel between Gov Square and the NK transit center would allow TANK to turn around all its buses right there -- a big capital investment but one that would save operational costs, avoid interfering with the Suspension Bridge, and open central Covington to more development.   

 

It's unlikely that streetcars could return to the Suspenion Bridge without a major retrofit of the bridge and so light rail following the highway and streetcars running down Madison and meeting the light rail line at Pike or 12th seems like it would be tough to get done. 

Voinovich: Tolls part of bridge discussion

By Anthony Hanshew, Herald-Dispatch, April 13, 2008

 

CINCINNATI (AP) — U.S. Sen. George Voinovich wants to reopen talks on an idea that has already led to a public outcry — charging tolls to pay for a new bridge to link two interstates from Ohio to Kentucky.

 

The Ohio Republican said tolls cannot be ruled out of the discussion in planning a replacement for the 45-year-old Brent Spence Bridge, which carries 150,000 cars and trucks a day across the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Covington, Ky.

I still say toll it.

With trolls. .  .

I don't understand why the Queensgate option isn't viable. The businesses there are so sprawled out. I don't think it would be terrible if they moved. Closer to city even.

 

I want the bridge as far West as possible. But if I understand the routes none of them will allow direct access from the Westside. No River Rd, no Eight St, no Westwood Northern, maybe Queen City Ave.

 

Bridge building could come sooner

BY MARGARET A. MCGURK | [email protected]

 

A new Brent Spence Bridge may not be all that far away, if local efforts to streamline the project work. In fact, construction theoretically could start as early as 2012 instead of 2015, shaving three years’ worth of wait and untold price inflation off the project’s multi-billion-dollar price tag, according to regional planning executive Mark Policinski.

 

Already, an ad hoc group of state, local and federal officials has been meeting about speeding up the process of choosing a route for a new bridge. If they succeed, it would trim the process by about a year. Another two years could be saved later if the project uses up-to-date building methods popular in the private sector, said Policinski, executive director of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments.

 

To read more: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080525/NEWS01/80525007

I have bigger hopes of leaving the Queensgate area like it is so we don't block large swaths of land from development similar to the convergence of 75 and 71.

I still say toll it.

 

I still say tolling is one of the only viable options that insures that the build alternative gets built, unless they go with the super secret tax for the Brent Spence Project.

 

I take it that they are implying that they will use a Port Authority to build the bridge. A Port Authority was how the Fox Highway went from being a pipe dream to being reality. A Port Authority allows for more risk to be taken on because any debt accumulated goes against the Port Authority, and not the local government agencies funding it. It should, if set up properly, allow for cooperation across states as well. Believe it or not, but the Fox highway was originally supposed to be a toll road. Some how that mega project got built. I am confident that they'll find a way to build this bridge. You might hate highways and what they've done to the urban cores, but one can not ignore the national and regional significance of this link. Even this bridge will be necessary in a multimodal Cincinnati.

I'm not necessarily opposed to tolls, because it is a usage tax after all (which as far as taxes go, is about as fair as it gets), but I just can't figure out how you can safely fit a tolling plaza in there.  At least, not on the KY side.  There just doesn't seem to be enough space between the Brent Spence and Death Hill to keep traffic from backing up into one or both of those.  Anyone have any ideas on this?  The only thing I can think of is to have a northbound toll near Erlanger in KY and a southbound one somewhere between the downtown and Hopple Street exits, but this hardly seems ideal.  You have to follow 75 pretty far into KY before you find a long, straight stretch of level ground.

^------ Put the toll plaza way up on top of the hill near Kyles Lane. Eliminate all access between Ohio and Kyles lane (The Covington Ramps impede traffic anyway.) Improve access to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge from the Ohio side. Toll the existing bridge as a form of congestion pricing. Don't build a new bridge, as we won't need the capacity in the future anyway.

^ You'd have to go further south than that.  There's a sharp curve at the Ft. Mitchell exit that could become dangerous if traffic backed up at the toll.  The first safe stretch is between Buttermilk Pike and 275, which is only about 4 miles south of the river.

 

I like your idea of improving the Clay Wade Bailey, but I think the city of Covington would have something to say about losing ALL of their expressway access.  I don't think it would be a big problem if people living in covington crossed the bridge without hitting the toll booth.  They'd hit it just as often when going south to Florence anyway.

Well they could double deck it for about a mile or so before the bridge.

^---- The geometry for the Covington ramps isn't very good. A skillful integration of the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge may very well improve traffic and reduce accidents in the Covington area.

 

 

I don't know why they won't put in a  temporary fix by extending the W 12 st entrance ramp to the 4th street entrance ramp and put ramp meters as they make the 4th lane across the Brent Spence and on the Ohio side extend the US50 exit ramp to the southbound I-71 lanes just before the Brent Spence.  This would allow no merging delays for I-75 period.

I'm not necessarily opposed to tolls, because it is a usage tax after all (which as far as taxes go, is about as fair as it gets), but I just can't figure out how you can safely fit a tolling plaza in there.  At least, not on the KY side.  There just doesn't seem to be enough space between the Brent Spence and Death Hill to keep traffic from backing up into one or both of those.  Anyone have any ideas on this?  The only thing I can think of is to have a northbound toll near Erlanger in KY and a southbound one somewhere between the downtown and Hopple Street exits, but this hardly seems ideal.  You have to follow 75 pretty far into KY before you find a long, straight stretch of level ground.

 

The technology exists (and is in use) where youre license plate information is collected and you are sent a bill for your toll.  That eliminates the need for toll booths.  It's very similar to the camera systems in use for traffic signals that logs the plate numbers of folks that run the light.

^ And that's different than EZ-Pass and I-Pass, right?  So you wouldn't have to rely people being subscribers, leaving others that are still paying with cash?

 

If so, that's very cool.

I'm not necessarily opposed to tolls, because it is a usage tax after all (which as far as taxes go, is about as fair as it gets), but I just can't figure out how you can safely fit a tolling plaza in there.  At least, not on the KY side.  There just doesn't seem to be enough space between the Brent Spence and Death Hill to keep traffic from backing up into one or both of those.  Anyone have any ideas on this?  The only thing I can think of is to have a northbound toll near Erlanger in KY and a southbound one somewhere between the downtown and Hopple Street exits, but this hardly seems ideal.  You have to follow 75 pretty far into KY before you find a long, straight stretch of level ground.

 

The technology exists (and is in use) where youre license plate information is collected and you are sent a bill for your toll.  That eliminates the need for toll booths.   It's very similar to the camera systems in use for traffic signals that logs the plate numbers of folks that run the light.

 

I don't know if that technology is proven on an interstate highway. That said, Interstate 75 could be a prime candidate for being a proving ground.

The 407 around Toronto has such a system, and that is equivalent to an interstate.  It managed to track my rental car back to cincinnati for National to add it to my bill!

But the 407 was privately funded, whereas Interstate 75 was not (the 407 is also in Canada). The FHWA has made it clear, with very few exceptions, that a state would need to pay back the federal funds used to construct the highway. This rule set seems to be wavering a bit... Pennsylvania is applying for tolling on Interstate 80, South Carolina for Interstate 95. The West Virginia Turnpike is an extreme example; it's upgrade costs were so high that tolling was allowed -- a continuation of tolling really from when the Turnpike opened in the 1950s as a non-interstate highway.

I had the chance to ask the chief engineer of this project in person about the toll booths...he said there will be no traditional toll plaza.  It will be similar technology to the red light cameras.  I was unable to follow up with more questions because some autistic guy started going nuts asking him incoherent technical questions. 

But tolling is not a done deal yet.

Overhaul byzantine federal road-building process to get bridge built

BY MARK R. POLICINSKI

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/EDIT02/806130365/1021/EDIT

Hearing on opposing rerouting of I-75

BY THE ENQUIRER

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080622/NEWS01/806220397/1056/COL02

 

QUEENSGATE -- Business owners, public officials and others who do not want to see Interstate 75 run through Queensgate are expected to turn out Tuesday for a public hearing.

 

The hearing, 6 to 9 p.m. at the Queensgate Ramada Inn, 800 W. Eighth St., is focused on routes for the I-75 approach to a new Brent Spence Bridge. Roxanne Qualls, chair of a Cincinnati City Council subcommittee on infrastructure and transportation, hopes to show enough community opposition to get the Queensgate option crossed off. Maps of the routes can be found at www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com under "Alternatives" and "Conceptual Alternatives Solutions."

 

 

It's an 'urban bridge tax'

Contender for House whip says bridge toll unacceptable

By Patrick Crowley • [email protected] • July 1, 2008

 

COVINGTON - State Rep. Arnold Simpson is no longer referring to the possibility of charging motorists to cross a rebuilt Brent Spence Bridge as a "toll."

 

Instead, Simpson, a Covington Democrat seeking a spot in General Assembly House leadership, is calling it an "urban bridge tax."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080701/NEWS0103/807010337/1170/NEWS

Actually it's a suburban bridge toll since people traveling back and forth between Covington and downtown Cincinnati can use the free bridges.  Covington and NKY people will never admit that the overcrowding on the bridge is a symptom of them demanding the rerouting of the bridge in the 1950's from Ludlow to the much more congested Covington alignment and of course the unbridled suburban growth of Kenton and Boone counties. 

^ Admit it?  I doubt that most would even remember it.  It was regrettable in many ways, starting with the destruction of Covington's west side.

    "The project, which is not expected to start for another decade, could cost as much as $3 billion."

 

    Given peak oil and the associated financial problems, I think it's fairly safe to assume that the Brent Spence will never be replaced. Various people are pretending that it will be replaced, though.

 

    A few years ago, weren't they calling for a new bridge by 2012?

 

I'd disagree, especially with notions of a new "New Deal" needed if things don't turn around. One of the foci will be infrastructure investment and after Minnesota - I'd imagine bridges will get attention long before a long list of other infrastructure investments.

Agreed, and $3 billion is CHEAP.

 

In comparison, the Ohio Bridges Project is now costing over $4 billion in 2008 dollars. Compare that to $3 billion two years ago and much less only 5 years ago.

 

By the time this project is started, the cost will be $5 billion easy.

There were at least 20 objections to Alternatives 1 and 2...these are likely to be killed.  These came up at the subcommittee meeting on the 24th and included objections from the Covington city manager, Duke Energy, CPA (Longworth Hall), the Queensgate Business Alliance, the Museum Center, Fox 19, you name it.

    "The project, which is not expected to start for another decade, could cost as much as $3 billion."

 

    Given peak oil and the associated financial problems, I think it's fairly safe to assume that the Brent Spence will never be replaced. Various people are pretending that it will be replaced, though.

 

    A few years ago, weren't they calling for a new bridge by 2012?

 

 

the roebling was the first one to go up and it will be the last one standing

This new bridge needs to be an icon for the region. I really hope they don't drop the ball on this one. If it were up to me, the new Brent Spence should be something people in different regions of the US should be able to identify, especially given I75's significance.

 

Personally, I think the double-decker bridges are horrendous. I love the cable suspended bridges and something that's lit up well.

 

 

imo, there's nothing like this:

 

 

I like this style now, but I feel that in the future this won't be so appealing:

 

Most major new US river bridges these days are cable stayed, just like in the past they were steel truss.  It won't be a distinctive design for long.

 

I think a cable design would be cheaper also.

I would love to see it!