First lets look at the project. The issue is that the bridge is over capacity and projections are that traffic will get worse. (We will ignore the inability of DOTs to forecast for now). The most recent (2009) survey has volume at 167,000 ADT or vehicles per day. With no action, demand is projected to grow to 200k ADT. This places the current and future loads above the rough estimate of capacity for eight lanes of 160k.
** Update - "Why it's needed: Brent Spence, built in 1963, carried 149,000 vehicles a day in 2001, far over its recommended capacity of 100,000 vehicles a day."
Note that recommended capacity is engineering speak for overbuilt. ASCE would like to replace 30% of all bridges.
The Options Analysis discusses a number of complicated arrangements that could be used to partner with the private sector and use federal loans, but the end result is one table (p.72):
To sum up this table, there are no options with a $1 toll that have a positive project value. The project will only happen if a $2 toll is used and a record setting TIFIA (federal loan) is given to the project.
Tolls on the Brent Spence are complicated because there are so many other bridges that are free. This means that a large portion of traffic would go to other bridges. (see page 49)
While I just like the graphic above, the more interesting table is on page 47:
This table shows that traffic on the bridge would drop from current levels of 167k to under 140k for over a decade. This is under our rough estimate of current capacity of 160k. While traffic could again pass capacity again in 2040, our ability to forecast demand out that far is limited and should be taken with a grain of salt.
One final piece. While there is not a detailed breakdown of congestion by time of day in the documents I have reviewed so far, traffic typically occurs during rush hour periods. This means that the bridge is only at capacity for 4-6 hours a day. The rest of the time, the current setup is just fine. Table 5-4 shows that 50,000 people a day would be inconvenienced by the tolls during off peak hours just so that peak hour drivers can have a new bridge.
Lets pull it all together.
Option 1: Do nothing an deal with increased traffic congestion.
Option 2: Spend $2.5B on a bridge largely financed by a $2 toll
*** or ***
Option 3: Keep the current bridge and implement congestion tolls of less than $2 on avg.
Congestion pricing is a tool not widely used in the U.S. mostly because the US DOT limits tolls on road paid for with federal money. At least some law is going to have to change to build the bridge, why not this one. We know that tolling $2 during peak periods will reduce demand below capacity. We should build a toll facility on the current bridge that is only active when needed, evenings and weekends could be free.
Option 3 achieves everyone's goals. Reduced congestion, minimized tolls, minimized construction, and does not drain states or federal government of highway money.
But there is more. In the options analysis, all toll money was needed to repay loans or investors - depending on the final structure of the deal. Under this approach, there are no (or very small) loans to pay off so the money is free to fund other projects. The most appropriate place to spend would be on alternatives to the Brent Spence such as TANK.
One issue/ opportunity of this plan is that the toll plaza for both directions could be placed between 5th and 9th St in Covington. All ramps at 4th and 5th would be removed to reduce accidents on the bridge and ensure that everyone pays tolls. To compensate businesses on the north side of Covington for the loss of a highway ramp, toll money could be set aside for economic development of the area impacted. Ramps at 12th would remain. There would be plenty of money for this as projections showed tolls of $9,883 M over the life of the project - and this does not included the non-toll funding sources for the project.
In conclusion, the project can not be built without tolls, but tolls eliminate the need for the project. Implementing congestion based tolls, but not building a new bridge is more equitable for everyone and saves billions of dollars.
I would appreciate any comments or questions you have on this plan.
The Options Analysis discusses a number of complicated arrangements that could be used to partner with the private sector and use federal loans, but the end result is one table (p.72):
To sum up this table, there are no options with a $1 toll that have a positive project value. The project will only happen if a $2 toll is used and a record setting TIFIA (federal loan) is given to the project.
Tolls on the Brent Spence are complicated because there are so many other bridges that are free. This means that a large portion of traffic would go to other bridges. (see page 49)
While I just like the graphic above, the more interesting table is on page 47:
This table shows that traffic on the bridge would drop from current levels of 167k to under 140k for over a decade. This is under our rough estimate of current capacity of 160k. While traffic could again pass capacity again in 2040, our ability to forecast demand out that far is limited and should be taken with a grain of salt.
One final piece. While there is not a detailed breakdown of congestion by time of day in the documents I have reviewed so far, traffic typically occurs during rush hour periods. This means that the bridge is only at capacity for 4-6 hours a day. The rest of the time, the current setup is just fine. Table 5-4 shows that 50,000 people a day would be inconvenienced by the tolls during off peak hours just so that peak hour drivers can have a new bridge.
Option 1: Do nothing an deal with increased traffic congestion.
Option 2: Spend $2.5B on a bridge largely financed by a $2 toll
*** or ***
Option 3: Keep the current bridge and implement congestion tolls of less than $2 on avg.
Congestion pricing is a tool not widely used in the U.S. mostly because the US DOT limits tolls on road paid for with federal money. At least some law is going to have to change to build the bridge, why not this one. We know that tolling $2 during peak periods will reduce demand below capacity. We should build a toll facility on the current bridge that is only active when needed, evenings and weekends could be free.
Option 3 achieves everyone's goals. Reduced congestion, minimized tolls, minimized construction, and does not drain states or federal government of highway money.
But there is more. In the options analysis, all toll money was needed to repay loans or investors - depending on the final structure of the deal. Under this approach, there are no (or very small) loans to pay off so the money is free to fund other projects. The most appropriate place to spend would be on alternatives to the Brent Spence such as TANK.
One issue/ opportunity of this plan is that the toll plaza for both directions could be placed between 5th and 9th St in Covington. All ramps at 4th and 5th would be removed to reduce accidents on the bridge and ensure that everyone pays tolls. To compensate businesses on the north side of Covington for the loss of a highway ramp, toll money could be set aside for economic development of the area impacted. Ramps at 12th would remain. There would be plenty of money for this as projections showed tolls of $9,883 M over the life of the project - and this does not included the non-toll funding sources for the project.
In conclusion, the project can not be built without tolls, but tolls eliminate the need for the project. Implementing congestion based tolls, but not building a new bridge is more equitable for everyone and saves billions of dollars.
I would appreciate any comments or questions you have on this plan.
