(KY-IN) Tolls considered for Ohio River Bridges Project
Sherman L. Cahal
http://www.courier-journal.com/assets/B2538851214.PDF
SLC: Tolling is a viable option that would divert much truck traffic
from I-64 to I-65 and vice versa. An expanded I-265, which could be
renumbered I-64 as part of the 8664 plan, would generate revenue for
the state.
I also have another proposal: Kill the Interstate 66 project. Already
deemed a huge waste of money (except for in Pike county, of course),
the $2 billion in costs could be diverted elsewhere.
Article --
Bridge funding options studied
Private partnerships, tolls to be considered
By Marcus Green
mag...@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Lawmakers plan to consider tolls, federal loans and
partnerships between private developers and state government to help
pay for Kentucky's share of the $3.9 billion Ohio River Bridges
Project.
The project's cost rose nearly 60 percent, according to a new report,
prompting legislators to seek alternative funding and possible schedule
changes for building the two bridges and redesigning Spaghetti
Junction.
"I think the legislature has a significant role," House Speaker Pro Tem
Larry Clark, D-Louisville, told reporters after a transportation panel
hearing yesterday. "If we don't buy into it, it's not going to happen."
Panel members and Jefferson County legislators sought answers from
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials on the project's increased
cost and funding plan. They are asking for more information on how
tolls and public-private partnerships might work, and to justify plans
to build an eastern bridge first.
Rep. Rob Wilkey, co-chairman of the subcommittee, said he expects to
receive some answers by next month and plans to hold additional
meetings starting in January. The panel also will invite groups with an
interest in the project, including those opposed to the current plan.
"We're going to get a lot of information, have a lot of input and a lot
of discussion over the next several months on this project," said
Wilkey, D-Scottsville. "So everybody take a deep breath and relax just
a little bit, because there's going to be plenty of time to talk about
this project."
The $3.9 billion price tag includes a 20 percent cost overrun, and
officials are working with the Federal Highway Administration to save
money, said Marc Williams, Kentucky's highway commissioner.
Of Kentucky's estimated $2.8 billion share of the project, $98 million
has been committed so far through state and federal funds. An
additional $789 million is anticipated over the next six years through
the state's long-term highway plan, but lawmakers revise the plan every
two years.
State transportation officials say Kentucky's portion can be funded
through traditional sources used in the highway plan, including state
and federal gasoline tax revenue.
But under that plan, the project will consume about 13 percent of the
highway budget from 2006 to 2024. Some lawmakers want to consider ways
to revise the timeline of the project or make other changes to trim
costs.
"If by rearranging the sequencing of this project, we could realize
some significant savings ... that's something we want to look at,"
Wilkey said.
Federal dollars have been -- and can continue to be -- earmarked for
the project through federal transportation bills. But those aren't
additional funds beyond what Kentucky receives, Williams said.
State officials gave few details on how tolls or public-private
partnerships might work, triggering requests from lawmakers for more
information.
"I suspect that there will be requests made of both the Transportation
Cabinet and the finance cabinet that they really drill down and come up
with concrete proposals of how these concepts will work," said Rep.
Scott Brinkman, R-Louisville.
Sherman Cahal | http://www.abandonedonline.com/seicer
American Byways | http://www.americanbyways.com
Bridges & Tunnels | http://www.bridgestunnels.com
Abandoned | http://www.abandonedonline.com
@Flickr | http://www.flickr.com/photos/seicer
@MySpace | http://www.myspace.com/seicer
Mukade
"Sherman L. Cahal" <sherma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166241877.3...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Kentucky owns the majority of the river ( I think the entire River around
Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge project
cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the bridges or
would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Kentucky filed suit against Indiana and
Illinois respectively maintaining its claim for the entire river. Overall,
is this strategy wise or does Kentucky get other fees (like from barges)
which make this approach lucrative? If Kentucky does collect fees from Ohio
River usage, why couldn't these fees be used to help pay for the bridges?
Aaron M. Renn
> I realize the border between the two states is the low water mark of 1793 so
> Kentucky owns the majority of the river ( I think the entire River around
> Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge project
> cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the bridges or
> would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the costs of the bridges 50/50. Each
state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
> Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Kentucky filed suit against Indiana and
> Illinois respectively maintaining its claim for the entire river. Overall,
> is this strategy wise or does Kentucky get other fees (like from barges)
> which make this approach lucrative? If Kentucky does collect fees from Ohio
> River usage, why couldn't these fees be used to help pay for the bridges?
The strategy is wise if you pay no price for doing it. If anything, INDOT
bends over backwards to prove that they are a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Not only are they spending $1.1
billion in a region with relatively few Hoosiers primarily for the benefit
of Kentucky, they've also invested and are planning to invest over $150
million more to ensure Owensboro has a great link to I-64. Meanwhile
the narrow bridge at Madison, Indiana sits with all but no action.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Sherman L. Cahal
> On 2006-12-16, Mukade <charles....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I realize the border between the two states is the low water mark of 1793 so
> > Kentucky owns the majority of the river ( I think the entire River around
> > Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge project
> > cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the bridges or
> > would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
>
> Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the costs of the bridges 50/50. Each
> state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
> responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
> currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
No, its not an even 50/50 split unfortunately.
>From the article --
"The $3.9 billion price tag [...] Of Kentucky's estimated $2.8 billion
share of the project..."
Kentucky is once again brunting the majority of the costs.
> > Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Kentucky filed suit against Indiana and
> > Illinois respectively maintaining its claim for the entire river. Overall,
> > is this strategy wise or does Kentucky get other fees (like from barges)
> > which make this approach lucrative? If Kentucky does collect fees from Ohio
> > River usage, why couldn't these fees be used to help pay for the bridges?
>
> The strategy is wise if you pay no price for doing it. If anything, INDOT
> bends over backwards to prove that they are a wholly owned subsidiary of
> the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Not only are they spending $1.1
> billion in a region with relatively few Hoosiers primarily for the benefit
> of Kentucky, they've also invested and are planning to invest over $150
> million more to ensure Owensboro has a great link to I-64. Meanwhile
> the narrow bridge at Madison, Indiana sits with all but no action.
Nonsense.
US 231 north of Owensboro is congested due to the AK Steel facility and
numerous small towns and businesses that line the route. Since the
completion of the four-lane Ohio River span, traffic counts have
increased throughout, as it now provides a high-speed route through
Owensboro to Indiana. A four-lane controlled-access highway will
provide those coming off of the Natcher Parkway a convenient route
north.
The bridge at Madison, while "antiquated", is adequate for the interim.
US 421 is not an improved route in Kentucky, whereas only parts of it
south of Interstate 74 in Indiana are. Indiana constructed a newer
four-lane alignment directly into downtown Madison, giving clear
indication they are not in favour of a bypass for the town that would
include a bridge over the Ohio River.
An Interstate 265 bridge would be of benefit to both. Many from Indiana
are employed at industries lining Interstate 264 and 265, such as the
Ford Truck Plant. Vice versa, many are employed in Indiana, such as
along the former IAAP property. An improved connection will also
enhance travel times to the Clark Maritime Center and the former IAAP
facility, shorten commute times, and reduce travel delays.
Let's not bash Kentucky with your wholly pro-Indiana sentiments.
Froggie
>
> The bridge at Madison, while "antiquated", is adequate for the interim.
> US 421 is not an improved route in Kentucky, whereas only parts of it
> south of Interstate 74 in Indiana are. Indiana constructed a newer
> four-lane alignment directly into downtown Madison, giving clear
> indication they are not in favour of a bypass for the town that would
> include a bridge over the Ohio River.
I wouldn't call the bridge adequate. I've had opportunity to use the
bridge a few times over the past year. The north end of the bridge was
congested every time due to the multiple 90-degree turns onto separate
streets that US 421 makes.
But even discounting that, although the bridge may not be 'structurally
deficient' (don't know for sure), it *IS* narrow and thus 'functionally
obsolete'.
Froggie | Picayune, MS | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Mukade
> Aaron M. Renn wrote:
>> On 2006-12-16, Mukade <charles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I realize the border between the two states is the low water mark of
>> > 1793 so
>> > Kentucky owns the majority of the river ( I think the entire River
>> > around
>> > Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge
>> > project
>> > cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the
>> > bridges or
>> > would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
>>
>> Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the costs of the bridges 50/50. Each
>> state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
>> responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
>> currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
>
> No, its not an even 50/50 split unfortunately.
OK, then back to my original question. What does Kentucky gain by claiming
the entire river. The Supreme Court ruled this is a valid claim, and it is
hard to argue it, but there must be some benefit (revenue) gained. Again,
shouldn't this revenue be used for purposes such as this? If there is no
benefit, then why do they file suit against the northern states? If there is
no benefit, pretend the border is in middle of the river and let Indiana and
Illinois sail their riverboats and make the bridges 50-50. In the case of
Indiana currently, at least they have cash on hand.
>
>>From the article --
> "The $3.9 billion price tag [...] Of Kentucky's estimated $2.8 billion
> share of the project..."
>
> Kentucky is once again brunting the majority of the costs.
>
>> > Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Kentucky filed suit against Indiana and
>> > Illinois respectively maintaining its claim for the entire river.
>> > Overall,
>> > is this strategy wise or does Kentucky get other fees (like from
>> > barges)
>> > which make this approach lucrative? If Kentucky does collect fees from
>> > Ohio
>> > River usage, why couldn't these fees be used to help pay for the
>> > bridges?
>>
>
> US 231 north of Owensboro is congested due to the AK Steel facility and
> numerous small towns and businesses that line the route. Since the
> completion of the four-lane Ohio River span, traffic counts have
> increased throughout, as it now provides a high-speed route through
> Owensboro to Indiana. A four-lane controlled-access highway will
> provide those coming off of the Natcher Parkway a convenient route
> north.
I agree with the bridge improvements also. The old US 231 highway and bridge
from Owensboro was not adequate. It will be even better once the US 231
improvemnts continue to I-64 and (eventually) Jasper.
>
> An Interstate 265 bridge would be of benefit to both. Many from Indiana
> are employed at industries lining Interstate 264 and 265, such as the
> Ford Truck Plant. Vice versa, many are employed in Indiana, such as
> along the former IAAP property. An improved connection will also
> enhance travel times to the Clark Maritime Center and the former IAAP
> facility, shorten commute times, and reduce travel delays.
No doubt on that. I hate driving from I-64 east of Louisville into Indiana.
The current configuration is wholly inadequate.
Mukade
"Froggie" <fro...@mississippi.net> wrote in message
news:1166364060.4...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indiana is scheduled to spend $25M in 2016 on that bridge (see
http://www.in.gov/dot/div/pubs/2016ConstList.pdf). I'm not sure what that
buys. According to the maps I have online, in Madison, Indiana actually has
about 400 feet of the width of the river so presumably Indiana pays a
greater share for this bridge than some of the others. I still wonder
exactly how the formula to split costs is derived.
I agree, it isn't adequate or safe because of its width. As you said, the
streets approaching it are confusing at best.
Mukade
"Aaron M. Renn" <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote in message
news:em2k3g$ans$1...@e250.ripco.com...
> On 2006-12-16, Mukade <charles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I realize the border between the two states is the low water mark of 1793
>> so
>> Kentucky owns the majority of the river ( I think the entire River around
>> Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge project
>> cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the bridges
>> or
>> would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
>
> Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the costs of the bridges 50/50. Each
> state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
> responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
> currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
That would imply that the spaghetti junction rebuild is close to $1.1B. Is
that correct or are the Kentucky approaches to the new bridges also much
more costly than the Indiana approaches?
>
>> Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Kentucky filed suit against Indiana and
>> Illinois respectively maintaining its claim for the entire river.
>> Overall,
>> is this strategy wise or does Kentucky get other fees (like from barges)
>> which make this approach lucrative? If Kentucky does collect fees from
>> Ohio
>> River usage, why couldn't these fees be used to help pay for the bridges?
>
> The strategy is wise if you pay no price for doing it. If anything, INDOT
> bends over backwards to prove that they are a wholly owned subsidiary of
> the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Not only are they spending $1.1
> billion in a region with relatively few Hoosiers primarily for the benefit
> of Kentucky, they've also invested and are planning to invest over $150
> million more to ensure Owensboro has a great link to I-64. Meanwhile
> the narrow bridge at Madison, Indiana sits with all but no action.
I guess it still isn't clear that it is a 50-50 split for the bridge itself.
If it is anything close though, I would agree it isn't fair given the pains
Kentucky takes to stymie river commerce by Illinois and Indiana. But the 71%
burden that Kentucky has makes me think it isn't.
Any idea how the US 41 Ohio River bridge is funded as the entire structure
and approaches are in Kentucky?
Sherman L. Cahal
> "Aaron M. Renn" <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote in message
> news:em2k3g$ans$1...@e250.ripco.com...
> > On 2006-12-16, Mukade <charles....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I realize the border between the two states is the low water mark of 1793
> >> so
> >> Kentucky owns the majority of the river ( I think the entire River around
> >> Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge project
> >> cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the bridges
> >> or
> >> would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
> >
> > Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the costs of the bridges 50/50. Each
> > state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
> > responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
> > currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
>
> That would imply that the spaghetti junction rebuild is close to $1.1B. Is
> that correct or are the Kentucky approaches to the new bridges also much
> more costly than the Indiana approaches?
The Spaghetti Junction rebuild is near $1.1 billion.
The Kentucky Interstate 265 approach is wholly more complicated than
Indiana's. Kentucky's approach involves the reconstruction of the US 42
interchange with a variant of a diamond, the construction of a tunnel,
and the bridge approach itself. Indiana's approach involves the partial
reconstruction of three ramps from IN 62 and the construction of the
approach roadway.
> I guess it still isn't clear that it is a 50-50 split for the bridge itself.
> If it is anything close though, I would agree it isn't fair given the pains
> Kentucky takes to stymie river commerce by Illinois and Indiana. But the 71%
> burden that Kentucky has makes me think it isn't.
The usage of tolls would not only benefit the state of Kentucky, but
Indiana since many travel back and forth between the states for
employment. It would be far better than using the downtown Interstate
65 span, utilising the congested Spaghetti Junction interchange, and
using the inadequate (but cannot be upgraded) Interstate 64 or the
somewhat less congested Interstate 71 to work.
Mukade
So was Aaron correct then that the bridge funding is at least close to 50-50
(regardless of tolls or not)? With the spaghetti junction rebuild clearly
the responsibility of Kentucky and a more expensive approach in Kentucky, it
seems the actual bridge construction (almost 100% in Kentucky) is being
split close to 50-50. I am just a little confused how this all works. I
agree it benefits both states and the burden must be shared to some extent,
but probably not 50-50 in that Ky has stopped projects on the Ohio River in
both Illinois and Indiana.
>
Sherman L. Cahal
>From the article --
"The $3.9 billion price tag [...] Of Kentucky's estimated $2.8 billion
share of the project..."
That is for the entire project itself. Tolling would only be an option
for the Interstate 265 span.
The Spaghetti Junction is wholly inside Kentucky, therefore Indiana
would have no part in funding for that and it should be excluded.
As with the East End Bridge's funding, the Kennedy Bridge also faces an
unequal funding distribution.
Mukade
>> >
>> > The usage of tolls would not only benefit the state of Kentucky, but
>> > Indiana since many travel back and forth between the states for
>> > employment. It would be far better than using the downtown Interstate
>> > 65 span, utilising the congested Spaghetti Junction interchange, and
>> > using the inadequate (but cannot be upgraded) Interstate 64 or the
>> > somewhat less congested Interstate 71 to work.
>>
>
As much as I appreciate the need for creative funding alternatives, I'm not
sure tolling is good for this project. Undoubtedly building toll roads works
in larger cities where they provide faster, more affordable (but not
inexpensive) alternatives. In this case, I would think people may follow the
free alternatives at least until these roads are gridlocked. I would think
it would be more similar to NW Indiana where the Borman carries much more
traffic that the Toll Road - unless the toll is modest. Unfortunately, if
the toll is small, it probably won't cover the high cost. Isn't this a
similar dilemma that St. Louis is facing?
Aaron M. Renn
>>> > Louisville). I also see that Kentucky pays for 71% of the bridge
>>> > project
>>> > cost. Does that mean Indiana only pays for its approaches to the
>>> > bridges or
>>> > would Indiana actually pay for part of the bridge structures?
>>>
>>> Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the costs of the bridges 50/50. Each
>>> state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
>>> responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
>>> currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
>>
>> No, its not an even 50/50 split unfortunately.
>
> OK, then back to my original question. What does Kentucky gain by claiming
> the entire river. The Supreme Court ruled this is a valid claim, and it is
The previous poster is incorrect. Indiana and Kentucky are splitting the
bridge costs 50/50. Didn't anyone actually read the KYTC financial report
that was just published? The Kentucky share of the overall project is
higher because the Spaghetti Junction rebuild is a huge share of the cost
and that is 100% Kentcuky's responsibility. Each state is also responsible
for their own approaches. But the bridge costs are being split 50/50.
Sherman L. Cahal
The junction of Interstates 64, 65, and 71 during rush hour, and the
chronic congestion between 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM along Interstate 64, 65,
and 71 on the mainline should give a clear indication that work needs
to be done. The completion of an East End Bridge would save travelers
during off-peak travel time approximately 35-40 minutes, since one
would not need to make essentially, a 45-degree angle. During peak
travel, it would save approximately 45-50 minutes.
Given that Interstate 71 is still two-lanes northeast of the downtown,
and ditto for Interstate 64 (which cannot be widened), an outer-bypass
is the only method available to solve the chronic congestion and
provide trucks with a viable alternative.
Mukade
I-64 to the Watterson to I-65 is an option from the east. I agree I-265 is
necessary given the situation, but it needs to have a good volume for tolls
to pay off. During no-peak hours, people will avoid it.
Sherman L. Cahal
General engineering services --
67% KYTC
33% INDOT
Bridge and approach spans --
50% KYTC
50% INDOT
More specifically --
Section 1 (Kennedy Interchange) --
$1,738.1 (million KYTC
$0 INDOT
Section 2 (I-65 downtown bridge)
$228.5 KYTC
$228.5 INDOT
Section 3 (I-65 approach - IN)
$411.4 INDOT
Section 4 (I-65 approach - KY)
$610.0 KYTC
Section 5 (I-265 Bridge)
$189.0 KYTC
$189.0 INDOT
Section 6 (IN approach mainlines)
$308.0 INDOT
You were correct in the 50% split for bridge construction costs,
however, the article was misleading in that it represented KYTC paying
the majority of the project's costs. It should be noted that the Ohio
River Bridges project entails the construction of two interstate
highway bridges, various new interchanges, and a reconstructed Kennedy
interchange. From the article, it would appear as if it was solely
focused on the two bridges, but the downtown bridge cannot be completed
without a rebuild of the Kennedy interchange at any rate.
Aaron M. Renn
>> state is also responsible for its own approaches, and Kentucky is 100%
>> responsible for the Spaghetti Junction rebuild. Indiana's share is
>> currently at $1.1 billion and rising.
>
> That would imply that the spaghetti junction rebuild is close to $1.1B. Is
> that correct or are the Kentucky approaches to the new bridges also much
> more costly than the Indiana approaches?
Spaghetti Junction is $1.7 billion
The downtown Indiana approach is $411 million
The East End Indiana approach is $306 million
The East End Kentucky approach is $610 million
> Any idea how the US 41 Ohio River bridge is funded as the entire structure
> and approaches are in Kentucky?
I don't know.
Mukade
bridge maintenance belongs to KYTC.
Back to how KY-IN bridges work, I noticed that on the SR 237/Ky 69 bridge
(Cannelton-Hawesville), INDOT seems to maintain the bridge even though this
is another area where the Ohio River is 100% in Kentucky. At least the
signage is INDOT's - even the begin and end signs for SR 237 are on the
southern side well inside Kentucky.
Aaron M. Renn
> I'd say that is a pretty good deal for Kentucky then. Hopefully ongoing
> bridge maintenance belongs to KYTC.
You got that right - it's a great deal for Kentucky.
> Back to how KY-IN bridges work, I noticed that on the SR 237/Ky 69 bridge
> (Cannelton-Hawesville), INDOT seems to maintain the bridge even though this
> is another area where the Ohio River is 100% in Kentucky. At least the
> signage is INDOT's - even the begin and end signs for SR 237 are on the
> southern side well inside Kentucky.
Wasn't that bridge and the Maukport bridge originally built by Indiana
as toll bridges? I believe the maintenance funding split was agreed
when Indiana dropped the tolls, but I'm not sure of the details.
H.B. Elkins
>Any idea how the US 41 Ohio River bridge is funded as the entire structure
>and approaches are in Kentucky?
100 percent Kentucky. (Taking into account, of course, any federal funding that
comes down the pike).
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"