Reasons an New Bridge has not been built yet

1. People don't like cars anymore - A thread of this argument is in all of the issues below. We built the interstate system at a time when cars were sexy and something to aspire to. Cities were scary and highways let us escape to large cheap homes. That was the 1950/60's. People then realized that we were tearing down great places. The 1970's brought the EPA, clean air, and clean water. Highways when from a way to escape polluted cities to the source of pollution.


2. Earmarks - Republicans banned them, but we still need to have a process for picking projects to build. Congress was afraid to let the President (or well informed Agency staff) make the decisions on what get built, so instead they are trying to craft a way to make earmarks without calling them that.


“I have to make sure that I explain to my conference that if you do it in a new way—as opposed to the way we used to do it—we will cede our power to the executive branch,” Shuster said at a March speech at the National Waterways Conference. link


 My Take: The Secretary of Transportation is more qualified than Congress to determine project priority, but if Congress wants to keep it out of the President's hands, let Governors decide. I guess, in a way this is what is already happening and also similar to the Republican proposal to divest back to states. The result will be tolls on every interstate. I have no issue with this. Most interstate congestion is local traffic, let local leaders solve it. USDOT can still set safety standards and give extra help to the soon to be created National Freight Network.


Or we could just bring earmarks back:
A political slogan symbolizing Washington’s wasteful spending was born, and earmarks began their demise. Lost in this debate was the fact that earmarks made up a minuscule fraction of the federal budget, less than one-half of 1 percent.


3. A long term transportation bill - MAP-21, the current transportation bill expires after just 2 years and was the first "long term" bill since 2005. IS-TEA was a six year bill. These long term bills are needed to builds long term infrastructure. Congress is playing a game of wait and maybe-we-will-be- in-power for the next bill. This make it difficult for both government and P3's to know what to plan for.


4. The gas tax - Ugh. As I have previously stated on this blog, I am not a fan of the gas tax. It encourages road construction while ignoring the impact on the community. (a.k.a. property values) A better system would capture the value that transportation bring to a property and collect it to pay for roads. This is how transit systems and road were built for most of U.S. history. Land speculators built them to improve their property values.


5. Transit - Transit is getting better. Cities around the country are building rail and BRT lines. Smartphones have taken the mystery out of transit. Technology is reducing bus bunching and giving transit agencies better ways to measure ridership. This means better routes with more informed riders. Better transit means that people that don't like cars can avoid them. The leads to lower VMT.


6. Lower VMT + Other bridges = No P3 - Since the Feds are not handing out checks anymore, P3s are all the rage. Every proposal to build an extra bridge includes a P3 to finance it. This works by giving all the tolls for X number of years to an investor who agrees to front the bridge construction cost. The issue is that investors hate risk and there is a big risk on the extra BSB. VMT is declining and no one can predict where it will go next. Most toll projects have few alternatives routes. This project will have at least 5 other bridges that people can use. If it were the only bridge to an island, investors would have confidence that people will use it. Lots of choices equals lots of uncertainty. Number of trips on I-75/71 will defiantly go down in the short term as people shop closer to home and use 471. In the long term, VMT may go up or down. Are we at peak car? Ever investment dollar in OTR is a bet against cars ruling the future.


7. Tea Party - They do not want to pay for anything. Ever. In any way. Unless it is guns.


8. Disbelief that driving is subsidized - This makes it hard to believe that the gas tax does not make a pool of money that can be used. People do not know how roads are funded.


I could keep going - but have dinner plans. Stay tuned for more.

Wait - can we toll the BSB?

I have been pleasantly surprised by the recent talk from the Obama Administration and Sec. Foxx regarding tolls on existing highways, but it got me thinking. What is the plan for the BSB if an extra bridge is built? Would an act of Congress be needed to make the current proposal legal?

From Washington Post:
"What does current federal law say?
It prohibits states or the federal government from establishing tolls on existing interstate highways. When states expand the system — think of the HOT lanes that opened last year in Virginia, and Maryland’s Intercounty Connector — they may receive permission to apply tolls on new lanes."
My understanding is that the existing bridge, which would be maintained for a complicated combination of local roads and I-71 can not be tolled under existing federal law. This may complicate any effort to fund an extra bridge over the river for I-75 traffic if people can avoid the toll simply by using the adjacent bridge. I am going to have to re-read some documents and sort this out.

We have been reading all about how Ky needs to pass laws to allow for tolls, but do we also need Congress to take action?

Help me out in the comments if you know the answers:
Would the existing capacity be tolled? (4 interstate lanes in each direction)
Would local (non interstate) lanes be tolled?
Is Congressional action needed to add tolls to the existing Brent Spence Bridge?

I am guessing that you could get away with some kind of technicality where you toll the approach to the bridge rather than the bridge itself. Just wondering what this technicality is.

Existing Studies

I was reading that studies exist on regional rail transit in Cincinnati. The one the is most interesting is also 3000+ pages. I pulled a few interesting pages out for you below.

First, they evaluate a route similar to mine. I am not sure why they want to go through Evendale when they could go through Glendale, Wyoming and Tri County. My route is in pink below. They also proposed a route through West Chester. This is wrong, transit is for urban walk-able places. 

So what did they think? The route would get a 1000 riders a day.  This is crazy. They only expect 9 riders a day to the Dayton Airport. I have not had a chance to dig in and find the methodology error yet. For more realistic ridership numbers, check our Chicago's Metra daily ridership. 

With only 1,000 riders a day, their analysis concludes that the route would cost $54 a day per rider. If the ridership were something more realistic like 20,000 a day the operating cost would be $2.70 per rider. This is completely feasible.

It should be noted that the expected cost of these rail lines would be 1/5 the cost of an additional bridge. We should put it to voters - would you rather have five commuter rail lines or another bridge. 

Finally - just because I thought it was pretty: 

My Plan

My plan is to create a region tied together through transit. Cincinnati does not think of itself as connected to Dayton - but everyone else does because it is.

My has several parts and may take 20 years to implement. 

1. Move I-75 west at the river into the flood zone freeing up space in downtown Cincinnati for transit oriented development
2. Build transit connecting the region along the Mill Creek and Great Miami River
3. Consolidate airports
4. Connect I-71 to the new airport

Part 1 Move I-75 West

This is the focus of this blog because this has the most near term implementation. The point of this is to reverse some of the damage done in the 1960's. It also brings underutilized land into the urban core, allowing the city's central business district to grow. Few other cities have the opportunity to increase the acreage of the urban core like Cincinnati does.

Part 2: Build Transit connecting the region

Eighty percent of Ohio residents live in an urban area. That does not include Northern Kentucky, one of the more urban parts of that state. Historically, railroads went through urban cores because when they were built, that is where the factories were. Today, those rail lines still carry freight through the center of Cincinnati, Hamilton, Middletown and Dayton. However, several railroads wanted to service this route, so redundant lines run parallel to each other throughout the region. This leave the opportunity to consolidate service and free up lines for transit exactly where they are needed - in urban areas. It would connect the (newly expanded from pt 1) Cincinnati and Dayton convention centers. A major stop and only park and ride would be located at Tri County Mall. This would utilize the mall parking lot that sit empty much of the time - while people are at work.

Sorry for the messy map below. The line I am proposing is in yellow below.
Key 
Yellow: Proposed line
Red pins: Proposed stops (potential extension to Columbus)
Black: Existing Freight Rail Lines
Blue: Dead end existing freight lines
Pink: Rail spurs that would be impacted
Brown: New airport - keep reading
Orange: New highway

Part 3: Consolidate the Airports

Cincinnati gambled on Lunken Airport are the main airport for the region and lost. The resulted in CVG becoming the leading passenger airport and control of the airport in Kentucky's hands. Closing the DAY (Dayton) and CVG will not be cheap, but it is in the best long term interest of the region. In order to compete, an airport needs a strong base population. This is why OHare has continually gained flights while CVG has very noticeably lost them. Consolidation changes the region from one of 2 million people to one of 3.3 million. It also allows the region to connect the airport to transit and give control of the airport back to Ohio. This new airport would be located along the new transit route between Trenton and Hamilton.

Think of the economic impact this would have on Ohio. I don't see how Ohio politicians could resist.


Part 4: Connect I-71 

I talk a great deal about how bad highways are on this blog, but I am not totally against highways. Connecting I-71 near Kings Island to I-75 and the new airport will bring passengers from all over Ohio to the new airport.

This plan is an alternative to the Brent Spence addition for several reasons.

• Less development in Kentucky means fewer people crossing the river
• Fewer trips to CVG means fewer trips over the river
• More transit along I-75 means fewer car trips
• Transit serving the second street transit station would have strong connections to Northern Kentucky transit - reducing vehicles

Cincinnati + transit: not even trying

So I have been getting nervous lately because Kentucky seems to be getting their act together on the Brent Spence. Maybe I am generalizing too much, there are exceptions, but on the whole I would describe Kentucky as anti-urban.

I have a plan that is very different than that put out by OKI, the agency that determines most transportation funding in the region. My plan would increase transit ridership and urbanization. (see next post)  OKI's plan is not even trying. Lets look at it.

OKI's plan is for the number of people living near transit to decline by 9.2% from 713k to 647k. 

Source: OKI 2012 Transportation Plan, p. 41

OKI plans to achieve this goal by emptying out the City of Cincinnati.

Source: OKI 2012 Transportation Plan, p.6

How does this relate to the Brent Spence? The organization that leads planning for the region and determines what projects are eligible for federal money is not planning for an urban future. They are focused on getting more people from the suburbs to the suburbs. The additional* bridge next to the Brent Spence is often billed as a freight project, however the existing bridge - like most highways - is under utilized outside of commuting hours. The additional bridge is for commuters. 

If the region were to focus on increasing transit ridership and focus development on urban areas Cincinnati could make the halt to VMT growth permanent. While the project site only list documents back to 2005, initial plans for the BSB addition were done before that. The chart below shows how any forecast done before 2007 is going to over project highway demand. 

It is tough to be an urbanist in Cincinnati. You have to find a way to get OKI board members from Kentucky, Indiana and Butler County to agree to stop development in their areas to focus resources on the urban core. Not even the City of Cincinnati can agree with its self to to this. However, without this focus, the wrong infrastructure will be built. 

The additional BSB could be built in a way that frees up space in downtown Cincinnati. This plan was rejected because it displaces too many businesses and utility lines. I would hope that the leaders of the most expensive project in the regions history would have the courage to move a few power lines. The businesses that would be displaced are car dealerships and single story warehouses. These are not the kind of business that belong walking distance to the urban center. The region should demand that these business be relocated for under utilizing our precious urban space. There is no excuse for keeping the current rats nest of ramps adjacent to the central business district. 

Image: Urban Cincy / Revive I-75 study

Adding an additional bridge next to the BSB will be the noose that strangles downtown Cincinnati for the next 50 years. This is a now or never moment for downtown Cincinnati. 

Prior to the 1950's all transportation was funded based on property value impacts. Land developers would built transit because they wanted to increase property values. Local governments improved roads to improve local property values. When transportation funding became linked to the gas tax rather than property values, the goals shifted. Rather than making great places, transportation funding went to "reducing congestion". This means moving cars faster - a self perpetuating cycle that increases gas taxes. 

A breakdown in gas tax ( not increasing with inflation) has broken this cycle for and driven transportation funding back to local (or at least state) government. The people that are planning the additional bridge are once again linking the funding to the number of vehicles that drive. This has resulted in a configuration that maximizes vehicle movement while ignoring potential property values. The opportunity cost of not moving I-75 is nowhere in the equation. 

Lets review: 

• OKI is not urban oriented
• The Highway Trust Fund/ fuel tax is not urban oriented
• The most expensive project in the Cincinnati urban core is about to happen
• It is not urban oriented

Maybe this - drive less, back to the city - thing is a fluke that will fix itself once it is easy to drive again. That is what we want right?

See the next post for my alternative to the additional bridge for I-75. 

*I encourage everyone to refer the the Brent Spence Bridge project as an additional bridge as the current bridge that is soooo dangerous and at risk of falling down is not going anywhere under any plan. The engineers agree that it is in good enough condition to keep. 

Option 3: Save Billions of Dollars

I finally had the chance to read the Brent Spence Bridge Corridor Options Analysis that was released last month. After reading, I had an idea. 

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. 

Twitter

Follow us on twitter.

@MoveTheMill