"We need to see what was the starting point of the conversation regarding the current alignment," McDaniel said at his capitol office last week. "I'm not convinced that everything was considered fairly, and I would like to know why did we end up at the decision that the Brent Spence Bridge needed to be updated, and then having a new bridge built right along side of it. And then we could look at other alternatives as part of that conversation."
But McDaniel said that the bridge decision should also include potential impacts on commercial development and that it is a "60-70 year decision, not just for the next three to five years."
This is part of a post by Jason Williams about highlighting the issues with the planning of the Brent Spence Bridge project. While it not clear from Jason's report, the root of this discontent is the same as I have been saying from the start. The project has the wrong goals.
I am not saying that the current bridge is great. It is not. I am not saying that the engineers on the project did a bad job, they did not. The issue is that from the start, engineers were not given the correct goal.
Here is a list of the "messages" at the start of the project:
- The purpose of this project is to improve safety and capacity on I-75/71 across the Ohio River.
- Replacing, rehabilitating the bridge or adding capacity is a very lengthy, detailed and regulated process. We are in the initial stage of project development, during which a series of alternatives will be developed.
- We are looking for a solution that is affordable, functional, aesthetically pleasing and ultimately constructible.
- Input from the Advisory Committee and the public will be taken seriously and incorporated into the decisions made during the planning and alternative evaluation processes.
Issues I have:
1. The safest street is one where vehicles go slow. There were zero auto related deaths in 1850. Transit is significantly safer than autos. Wider highways reduce accidents at specific points, but induce more driving in the region, potentially increasing accidents. If safety was so important, why not switch to three lanes on the BSB today using only paint?
2. The alternative were developed, but never given proper public review. A document exist of this process but it is not available on the web page. Only a table with cryptic descriptions of the alternatives is available. I am requesting that the document: "Brent Spence Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation Project: Conceptual Alternatives Solutions (March 2006) be made available to the public. It really bothers me to see quotes like this: OKI executive director Mark Policinski. "The location of the bridge has been well studied and documented." It may be documented, but how would the public know, it is not available. I only know it exist because other documents refer to it.
3. "Ultimately constructible" it a terrible phrase to use in a scoping document because it assumes that construction is needed. This shows that the project was biased from the start.
4. The primary input that was received was regarding aesthetics. An "Aesthetics Committee" was set up from the start. The first time most of the public heard about the project was to give input on how the bridge would look. No one today is commenting on how the project should look. What the public cares about is the cost and ROI of the project. Where is the public outreach on that?
The Northern KY Tea Party echos this sentiment:
“OKI's Policinski said it's not his agency's job to do a cost-benefit analysis of the project” [Brent Spence Bridge: What you need to know for 2015 Kentucky General Assembly, Lucy May, WCPO, January 7, 2015]
-----------------------------------
While the detailed document explaining the alternatives is not available, the criteria document is. It includes a number of metrics that the projects are scored "poor", "average", or "good".
Areas of consideration (with detailed components) included are:
- Congestion Mitigation
- Safety
- Geometric Improvement
- Separation of Regional and Local Traffic
- Simplification of Roadway Network
- Engineering
- Meets Current Design Standards
- Sustainability/Flexibility
- Environmental Resource Impacts
- Hazardous Materials
- Ecological
- Historical
- Archaeological
- Community
- Environmental Justice
- Access/Accessibility
- Interstate/US Routes
- Local Roads
- Overall
- Construction Cost
- Constructability
Let me take a few of these criteria on.
Congestion Mitigation: Congestion pricing is the best way to accomplish this.
Safety: See above
Engineering: Lots of issues with road engineering industry today. Here is one article that scratches the surface of the issues. Starts with the line: "Some of the most trusted planning tools used to manage vehicular traffic have shown themselves to be pretty harmful to city life in certain ways."
Environmental: When I first saw this, I though - I have been wrong this whole time, they did consider the community impact. Actually - nope. Here is how the largest infrastructure project in the regions history defines community: "Community: includes community facilities and services such as schools, parks, facilities and churches; business and residential displacements and community cohesion." That's it. No mention of quality of life, community goals, existing bike trail plans, transit or future development potential.
Missing: Economic benefit - there is no mention of the economic impact of the project.
From this document it appears that 100% of the goal is safety.
-------------------------------------------------
As McDaniel says, this is a 60-70 year decision. How will the basin of Cincinnati change over that period? Do we want to double the size of the trench cutting the city off from land in Queensgate? Is industry really coming back to the US and do we really want it downtown?
I will remind you. The correct answer is to congestion price the bridge we have. By the project teams math, this will redirect 40% of the current traffic to other bridges. Less traffic means that the bridge will be on par with other bridges in the country as far as utilization. Make it free during off peak hours. Problem solved.
This solution may not have sounded plausible in 2005 when "Traffic volumes are projected to increase to 200,000 vehicles per day by 2025." Even the USDOT now recognized that forecast done during this period were off.
-------------------------------------------------
P.S. I keep reading about how the gas tax has not been raised in 20 years. This is true and I support raising it. What is left out is that funding for transportation from the gas tax was last increased in 1997. Here is some history:
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.
Small point, but I think it is important because when we raise the gas tax this time, I believe we should include a deficit reduction component again.
