Commercial rail? Are we in the wild, wild west? Railroads are only good for moving coal across country anymore. You have to have the trucks on the highways and bridges moving the economy along.

 

If you want commuter rail, streetcars and the such, find the money to build them. I have no problem with them.

 

Are you having a bad day?

For the life of me I can't figure out why this bridge can't get fixed...I also can't figure out why it should cost that much either. A lot of greasing going on IMO.

 

Traffic studies, epa, corp of engineers, flood plans, designing, engineering, eminent domain, traffic control, politicians. Did I mention the epa and corp?

After that you have the price of concrete, asphalt, steel, labor, equipment, change orders, landscaping, storm runoff, epa- again, etc...

 

Surprised one can even be built and how in the heck does one even bid something that vast?

Are you having a bad day?

 

I don't think so. Am I off topic?

I don't think so. Am I off topic?

 

Commercial rail is used for way more than just coal.

Traffic studies, epa, corp of engineers, flood plans, designing, engineering, eminent domain, traffic control, politicians. Did I mention the epa and corp?

After that you have the price of concrete, asphalt, steel, labor, equipment, change orders, landscaping, storm runoff, epa- again, etc...

 

Surprised one can even be built and how in the heck does one even bid something that vast?

George Washington Bridge in NYC $1.1B Inflation Adjusted

Oakland Bay Bridge $1.3 Inflation Adjusted

Tsing Ma Bridge, China $1.35 billion built in the last 20 years and is one of the 10 longest in the world

 

Several other bridges closer to the size and scope of the I75 bridge built for much less than these famous examples

 

All I'm saying is that there will be a LOT of people getting rich off of that bridge...but it does need to be built

At the risk of taking this thread off track I think the premise of this thread represents exactly why conservatives tend to oppose any tax increase. Even the most staunch conservative recognizes infrastructure and maintenance of the federal road system as a responsibility of the federal government. They don't recognize the funding of light rail and bicycle paths as such so until boondoggle projects like this are eliminated from the highway trust fund I for one will oppose raising taxes or diverting tax dollars from other sources for this. There is still a nudge in Louisville to use federal dollars to build a light rail line between the airport and downtown. I think that's one of John Yarmuth's goals but I digress. The same is true for the current push in Frankfort to "stabilize" the gas tax. Until governments (that means politicians of both parties) become better stewards of tax dollars at all levels (local, state AND federal) I know at least one conservative that will oppose any action that will increase taxes at all.

George Washington Bridge in NYC $1.1B Inflation Adjusted

Oakland Bay Bridge $1.3 Inflation Adjusted

Tsing Ma Bridge, China $1.35 billion built in the last 20 years and is one of the 10 longest in the world

 

Several other bridges closer to the size and scope of the I75 bridge built for much less than these famous examples

 

All I'm saying is that there will be a LOT of people getting rich off of that bridge...but it does need to be built

 

I have not looked any of these up, but I'm wondering if the figures you have are just for the bridge itself. The biggest cost that I've seen associated with our project, involves redoing the whole corridor. (On the Cincinnati side, I think going as far back as the Hopple Street exit.) It's almost like the bridge is a secondary thought here, to some.

I have not looked any of these up, but I'm wondering if the figures you have are just for the bridge itself. The biggest cost that I've seen associated with our project, involves redoing the whole corridor. (On the Cincinnati side, I think going as far back as the Hopple Street exit.) It's almost like the bridge is a secondary thought here, to some.

 

I figure they are for the entire project.

 

Road construction is one of the biggest scams in government. It is needed but it is unrealistically expensive for what is provided.

I figure they are for the entire project.

 

Road construction is one of the biggest scams in government. It is needed but it is unrealistically expensive for what is provided.

 

Yes, I would love for someone "in the know" (paging CWB?) to tell me what the difference is between what Minneapolis did with their I-35 bridge replacement (which is apparently about 200 feet longer than the Brent Spence), which cost only $234 MILLION...and what is being proposed in Cincinnati at $2.6 BILLION. I know there are advantages to doing work along the corridor...but, does it have to be done all at once?

At the risk of taking this thread off track I think the premise of this thread represents exactly why conservatives tend to oppose any tax increase. Even the most staunch conservative recognizes infrastructure and maintenance of the federal road system as a responsibility of the federal government. They don't recognize the funding of light rail and bicycle paths as such so until boondoggle projects like this are eliminated from the highway trust fund I for one will oppose raising taxes or diverting tax dollars from other sources for this. There is still a nudge in Louisville to use federal dollars to build a light rail line between the airport and downtown. I think that's one of John Yarmuth's goals but I digress. The same is true for the current push in Frankfort to "stabilize" the gas tax. Until governments (that means politicians of both parties) become better stewards of tax dollars at all levels (local, state AND federal) I know at least one conservative that will oppose any action that will increase taxes at all.

 

Disagree. I would say that highway infrature development would best be handled by private enterprise that would charge fees for the use of their highways and bridges. That would be the most conservative position. The Federal Government already has way too much to screw up!

 

There are such enterprises on the west coast and they work out very well.

Disagree. I would say that highway infrature development would best be handled by private enterprise that would charge fees for the use of their highways and bridges. That would be the most conservative position. The Federal Government already has way too much to screw up!

 

There are such enterprises on the west coast and they work out very well.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I would assume that road projects like that would be paid for with tolls. I hear how much the people in Louisville are whining about the tolls on the new bridges and I can't imaging how loud it would get if a road was taken over by a private group and tolled.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I would assume that road projects like that would be paid for with tolls. I hear how much the people in Louisville are whining about the tolls on the new bridges and I can't imaging how loud it would get if a road was taken over by a private group and tolled.

 

There is technology now where information can be scanned at 70 mph, recorded and billed. No need to stop at all. And if you don't have one of these implants, your license gets recorded.

 

I lived in California in the 90's. This was common back then.

I know. That's whats going to be installed on the new bridges in Louisville, It's the fact that people are going to have to PAY to use the new bridges that is getting the whining going. If you tried to convert a section of a road in this area to a private pay as you use it road the screams would be deafening.

What are we paying in gas tax? 50, 60 cents a gallon?

What are we paying in gas tax? 50, 60 cents a gallon?

 

According to a front-page story in today's C-J, it's now 27.6 and is set to drop to 22.5 next month.

 

Gas tax compromise floated in Ky legislature