Brent Spence Toll Bridge? (Norwood, Reading: loan, versus, design)

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

^^ my contention is the projected cost of the bridge is rediculous to start with. Get some engineers with some smarts, if you can find any, to come up with a design at a fraction of the cost. If you give engineers a free hand they wil give you a utopia design you cannot afford. Clamp down, say this is the limit, and viola they miraculously produce another design within those parameters.

No argument from me on this. But in society today, so many people like to spend other people's money or live beyond their means. Ostentation seems to be acceptable when it comes to using tax dollars to build infrastructure in many areas of the country.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

No argument from me on this. But in society today, so many people like to spend other people's money or live beyond their means. Ostentation seems to be acceptable when it comes to using tax dollars to build infrastructure in many areas of the country.

I certainly do not deny this. As I said, put a limit on the cost and you will be surprised what the engineers will come up with. If you give them dream and la-la land they will use all of that also. Being an engineer myself I know this is a truism.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Those are only the proponents of the tolls. People that are against the tolls but want to replace the bridge are likely looking at ideas to fund the bridge in another manner.

I think the rainy day fund is a good idea. Back in the early 1980's while I was still living in Connecticut we had a Governor called Mr. Potato Head. He managed to build a 1.2 billion dollar budget surplus during his first 4 years in office. Unfortunately nobody knows how most of it was spent and we were left with 130 million a couple of years later. My thinking is if CT could save that kind of money in 4 years, OH and KY could squirrel away enough money to build the bridge in 5 to 10 years and not have to resort to tolls.

WILIWRadio--

Ohio under John Kasich has done this exact thing - turned an $8 billion deficit into a $1.5 billion surplus. It's one of the untold success stories of his administration.

And before anyone cries foul and say he gutted the Local Government Fund, yes, he did - and guess why? Because the current level of government spending was unsustainable. Government doesn't always need to do more with less. Sometimes it's better off doing less with less.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

WILIWRadio--

Ohio under John Kasich has done this exact thing - turned an $8 billion deficit into a $1.5 billion surplus. It's one of the untold success stories of his administration.

And before anyone cries foul and say he gutted the Local Government Fund, yes, he did - and guess why? Because the current level of government spending was unsustainable. Government doesn't always need to do more with less. Sometimes it's better off doing less with less.

And yet many of those cuts took the support levels to much lower than what was needed to even maintain required service levels.

[ProkNo5]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

^^ my contention is the projected cost of the bridge is rediculous to start with. Get some engineers with some smarts, if you can find any, to come up with a design at a fraction of the cost. If you give engineers a free hand they wil give you a utopia design you cannot afford. Clamp down, say this is the limit, and viola they miraculously produce another design within those parameters.

The vast majority of the project cost is not for the new bridge, it's for the three miles of new approaches that are completely unnecessary. They're building a flyover ramp from Northbound I-75 to Brighton as part of this project. It's completely unnecessary. They're also leveling half of Lewisburg for no reason, and they've completely over-engineered the ramps into Mainstrasse and the Covington Fast Food District. The whole idea that tolls would kill off business in that area is complete BS because they could easily toll the new bridge and use it for interstate traffic and use the current bridge for local traffic toll free...and keep the ramp into Covington exactly the way it is.

This is my biggest problem with the BSB project. They're WAY overbuilding the thing and not considering other options. It seems like they're just trying to appease the oil, asphalt, or construction industries for some reason. No one is arguing that there is not a traffic problem on the current BSB, but the solution they've chosen and are trying to fast track is shortsighted and wasteful. I also really HATE that they've been trying to push it through by pretending that the current bridge is in danger of collapsing. That is completely untrue.

[Chemistry_Guy]

Originally Posted by ProkNo5

The vast majority of the project cost is not for the new bridge, it's for the three miles of new approaches that are completely unnecessary. They're building a flyover ramp from Northbound I-75 to Brighton as part of this project. It's completely unnecessary. They're also leveling half of Lewisburg for no reason, and they've completely over-engineered the ramps into Mainstrasse and the Covington Fast Food District. The whole idea that tolls would kill off business in that area is complete BS because they could easily toll the new bridge and use it for interstate traffic and use the current bridge for local traffic toll free...and keep the ramp into Covington exactly the way it is.

This is my biggest problem with the BSB project. They're WAY overbuilding the thing and not considering other options. It seems like they're just trying to appease the oil, asphalt, or construction industries for some reason. No one is arguing that there is not a traffic problem on the current BSB, but the solution they've chosen and are trying to fast track is shortsighted and wasteful. I also really HATE that they've been trying to push it through by pretending that the current bridge is in danger of collapsing. That is completely untrue.

I agree with everything you said here. In many ways, the BSB project reminds me of the Eastern corridor project as well. Some fairly minor redesign changes could go a long way. Instead, a massive project is being rammed down our throats.

This isn't very surprising to me at all. Look at the membership of the TRAC.

Pages - Meet the TRAC

I see a teamsters union treasurer, some financial VPs, the business director for an architectural firm, and several public servants whose power and influence increases as the projects get bigger. There is no citizen's advocate on that advisory council. I bet every person on that council has some sort incentive to see every major project bloat to incredibly expensive levels.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy

I agree with everything you said here. In many ways, the BSB project reminds me of the Eastern corridor project as well. Some fairly minor redesign changes could go a long way. Instead, a massive project is being rammed down our throats.

This isn't very surprising to me at all. Look at the membership of the TRAC.

Pages - Meet the TRAC

I see a teamsters union treasurer, some financial VPs, the business director for an architectural firm, and several public servants whose power and influence increases as the projects get bigger. There is no citizen's advocate on that advisory council. I bet every person on that council has some sort incentive to see every major project bloat to incredibly expensive levels.

Oh yes, I definitely see how a commissioner of the north-western most county in the state of Ohio and the customer relations manager of the airport at Akron-Canton (which by the way is just south of Cleveland) are looking at this to really line their pockets.

Perhaps what looks right now to be over-kill is based on projections and surveys/studies and tie things into one project to avoid having to tear everything up again in 5-10 years.

Also, have there been any changes in safety standards since the previous construction that require a rework of some of the design?

[Chemistry_Guy]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

Oh yes, I definitely see how a commissioner of the north-western most county in the state of Ohio and the customer relations manager of the airport at Akron-Canton (which by the way is just south of Cleveland) are looking at this to really line their pockets.

I don't think it is that direct, but I definitely believe that they can achieve political gain by dealing with the same major players at construction companies that operate nationally and simultaneously run projects at both ends of the state.

Nevertheless, I don't see any reason why the people you mentioned (the only two that I didn't mention) would have any incentive to advocate against bloated spending and the addition of massive infrastructure that will need to be maintained for decades or centuries to come.

[kjbrill]

You simply do not have to redo miles and miles of interstate just to route a new bridge across the river.

Just make the new bridge carry the through interstate traffic. Sign it as such. If you miss the signs you are inconvenienced trying to make an adjustment. Use the existing bridge for local traffic, ramps and all. Would be even simpler if I-71 traffic was routed across the Norwood Lateral to I-75. If the Norwood Lateral has to be widened, should be a He*l of a lot cheaper than the miles of changes they are contemplating on both sides of the river.

I don't think anyone has put their thinking caps on yet as to what the best solution is to this subject.

[rrtechno]

Other than the TRAC members represent different regions throughout the state. If there is approval for "unnecessary" (my words) and bloated spending on massive infrastructure in one area of the state, there is less money available for projects in their own district.

I believe that would wipe out any "political gain by dealing with the same major players at construction companies" faster than anything. I don't know how it is in your part of the state, but in ours, you do NOT want to upset your constituents very often.