Brent Spence Toll Bridge? (Kent, Washington: 2013, bankruptcy, bill)

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have been in that area when people have missed their signs and needed to "make an adjustment".

Not a pretty sight.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

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.

Well, that makes all kinds of sense, considering a chunk of the Lateral is ... a bridge. Nevermind the traffic nightmare I-75 would become.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

Well, that makes all kinds of sense, considering a chunk of the Lateral is ... a bridge. Nevermind the traffic nightmare I-75 would become.

Why should it become a nightmare? The I-71/I-75 merge down in KY, do you consider that a nightmare? I sure don't. Put the through traffic on I-71 across the Norwood Lateral. I-75 is in the process of being widened regardless.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Why should it become a nightmare? The I-71/I-75 merge down in KY, do you consider that a nightmare? .

That part of the highway was designed to carry traffic from both routes; I-75 north of the bridge was not. Seems pretty elementary to me.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

That part of the highway was designed to carry traffic from both routes; I-75 north of the bridge was not. Seems pretty elementary to me.

So you believe the highway at the split in KY is just that much more robost than I-75 north of the river? Just rebuild the Norwood Lateral to the same standards and you have the same effect. I don't see any reason why the Norwood Lateral cannot be rebuilt to interstate standards for a He*l of a lot less money than what they are proposing for miles and miles of ramp and other development down by the river.

Oh there is a big difference. We might actually be able to put I-71 traffic across the bridge at something less than an astronomical cost.

[WILWRadio]

One thing I think that many proponents of tolls for this bridge have not understood is that the 3 billion dollars needed for this project will still need to be found up front before a shovel hits the ground. Tolls won't do a thing to raise money to build the bridge but will only be a source of revenue for other government projects or spending elsewhere.

[kjbrill]

You sell bonds to raise the money to build the bridge. Then you use tolls to pay off the bonds. Not so complicated. Start tolling the existing bridge immediately and use that money to help pay for the initial infrastructure improvements. Sell the bonds in increments, as you don't have to sell the total upfront, only as you need to pay for things.

I personally hate the idea of tolls, but I hate the $3 billion figure even more. I can't conceive why it should cost that much other than they are trying to cure every mistake made in the initial construction of I-75 and tie it to the bridge. Give an Engineer a free hand and that is the type of result you get.

I-71 and I-75 traffic are both on the same road currently south of the river. Since I-75 is currently being expanded again north of the river, why not keep I-71 traffic on it also? I-74 traffic is dumped onto I-75 in a rather compact interchange.

Expand the Norwood Lateral. Yes there will need to be some land acquisition. But I do not see that as a major obstacle. Enlarge or replace a couple of existing interchanges, and viola you get I-71 out of downtown. That should please some urbanists. To make it stick you need to cut I-71 off somewhere. How about around the Gilbert Ave, Reading Rd exchange? Sufficient streets for local traffic. I would actually severe the connection back at the 562 interchange.

A radical idea perhaps. But I have to believe a straight-thru, no local traffic, capacity only bridge can be built for a lot less than $3 billion dollars. We already have the ability to merge I-71 traffic going south. Would it need changes, certainly, but it is already going in the same direction. The same idea applies north of town. Plenty of time to take the merge over. Oh, you misinterpreted the sign about thru traffic versus local traffic. Sorry for your loss, don't expect it to happen again.

[Zen_master]

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.

Perhaps a well penned letter to the editor of the Enquirer, Dispatch, and Daily News is in order bringing this to the attention of the public?

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

You sell bonds to raise the money to build the bridge. Then you use tolls to pay off the bonds. Not so complicated. Start tolling the existing bridge immediately and use that money to help pay for the initial infrastructure improvements. Sell the bonds in increments, as you don't have to sell the total upfront, only as you need to pay for things.

I personally hate the idea of tolls, but I hate the $3 billion figure even more. I can't conceive why it should cost that much other than they are trying to cure every mistake made in the initial construction of I-75 and tie it to the bridge. Give an Engineer a free hand and that is the type of result you get.

I-71 and I-75 traffic are both on the same road currently south of the river. Since I-75 is currently being expanded again north of the river, why not keep I-71 traffic on it also? I-74 traffic is dumped onto I-75 in a rather compact interchange.

Expand the Norwood Lateral. Yes there will need to be some land acquisition. But I do not see that as a major obstacle. Enlarge or replace a couple of existing interchanges, and viola you get I-71 out of downtown. That should please some urbanists. To make it stick you need to cut I-71 off somewhere. How about around the Gilbert Ave, Reading Rd exchange? Sufficient streets for local traffic. I would actually severe the connection back at the 562 interchange.

A radical idea perhaps. But I have to believe a straight-thru, no local traffic, capacity only bridge can be built for a lot less than $3 billion dollars. We already have the ability to merge I-71 traffic going south. Would it need changes, certainly, but it is already going in the same direction. The same idea applies north of town. Plenty of time to take the merge over. Oh, you misinterpreted the sign about thru traffic versus local traffic. Sorry for your loss, don't expect it to happen again.

Bonds are still a form of loan when you stop and think about it.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

I have been in that area when people have missed their signs and needed to "make an adjustment".

Not a pretty sight.

But how many times have you made the same mistake?