I'm sure it's no surprise for those who, like me, watched Bridges Coalition spokesperson Kay Stewart on the local news last week inexplicably announcing that there's a consensus in favor of two Ohio River bridges just minutes after a Louisville Metro Council committee held its first meeting to explore alternatives, but the Coalition hasn't been exactly forthcoming with relevant information.
The first clue may have been the council chambers shown overflowing with 8664 supporters, but the second was the testimony of veteran traffic engineer Walter Kulash, who last night, along with advocates Tyler Allen and J.C. Sites, shared his feasibility study with an enthusiastic group of citizens in the Bomhard Theater at The Kentucky Center for the Arts.
Some highlights:
*It's the proposed expansion of Spaghetti Junction to over 20 lanes (dubbed Fettucini Junction by an attendee as it's way too fat to be spaghetti) that's radical, not the 8664 proposal.
In searching the entire country, Kulash could only find one project similar in size and complexity to the Spaghetti Junction expansion on the Bridges books. It's in the Los Angeles metro area. Downtown freeway removal, though, is common. Portland, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Chattanooga have all done it successfully. There's a current initiative in Portland to remove a second water-blocking freeway.
Other numerous, similar projects are in various approval and planning stages around the country with traffic models proving their meddle. Some were redesigned after initial planning as engineers began to figure out the advantages of smaller, surface level parkways over freeways.
* Fears of more endless studies and project delays are overblown. Even though much has been made by Bridges advocates of the dire consequences of trying to amend a federal record of decision, it just isn't that big of a deal. Kulash quoted an engineering friend who said that most major transportation projects in the country are operating under an amended ROD.
The initial approval process to reach a record of decision is made up of five steps that take years to complete. However, changes in plans require two questions to be answered: Does the changed proposal meet the purpose and need addressed by the original project and, if so, does it do so within the original project footprint so as to not further disturb the environment? If the answers are yes, all the original steps can be skipped and the record of decision can be amended in a matter of months. Kulash's work shows the answers to both questions are yes.
* Using numbers from the existing environmental impact study done for the Bridges Project, Kulash was able to show that the 8664 plan can handle the same traffic volume as the current proposal. Spaghetti Junction, greatly simplified under 8664, will have more than ample capacity to meet the peak hour, peak direction, year 2025 projections outlined in the Bridges study.
Waterfront traffic on I-64 was estimated by the Bridges project study to reach 100,000 ADT (average daily traffic) in the year 2025. 8664 would reroute 20,000 ADT to the northern, Indiana loop, leaving 80,000. The riverfront parkway would handle 40,000 to 50,000, leaving 30,000 to 40,000 ADT for the existing street grid. The east-west grid in and around downtown currently has 174,000 ADT in spare capacity, four to six times what's needed.
* Besides the obvious reclamation of riverfront property (valued between $130 and $260 million in real dollars, incalculable as a centerpiece), areas within sight or easy walking distance (calculated at 1/4 to 1/2 mile based on the experiences of other cities) would be greatly enhanced in value. Using the two mile stretch of the current waterfront 64 as a measuring stick, that equates to 300-600 acres or 60-120 city blocks.
* 8664 costs half as much as the current Bridges Project proposal and can be built faster.
The full feasibility study is available as a PDF on the 8664 web site.
unless I am mistaken, I think at one point I had heard that the I-64 traffic would be rerouted through southern indiana.
ReplyDeleteAre we to assume that this a referral to I-265 (Lee Hamilton xway) carrying the traffic load?
There has been a lot of discussion regarding this issue on the news lately, but rarely has there been information regarding where the traffic will be sent.
yes, as a resident of new Albany's other interstate - Main St - i wonder where the 8664 plan sends the extra traffic in Southern indiana?
ReplyDeleteI think it's fairly clear from last evening's presentation that the idea is to disperse traffic in a variety of ways nd on a variety of routes.
ReplyDeleteI am not oppossed to the idea, not at all. My only concern would be whether or not there would be improvements to the existing roadways that would see an increase in traffic flow.
ReplyDeleteI understand the 264 in lousy-ville could pick up a lot of traffic, as well as 265.
But the amount of congestion in the mornings and afternoons on 65 south outside my office window in jeff is horrid at best now, by adding several thousand more cars on each rush hour could be devistating to what little traffic flow there is.
Got ya, Chris. It's still early ...
ReplyDeleteIt's the current Spaghetti Junction that most often causes back ups on 65 South in Jeffersonville. The same is true coming the other direction in the afternoons. The Kennedy Bridge itself can easily handle projected capacity needs. It's the bottleneck of three interstates converging, and particularly all the weaving that occurs, that is the problem.
ReplyDeleteThere are few places in the U.S. where three interstates converge in a downtown area. Places like Spaghetti Junction long ago convinced traffic engineers to never do it again.
Modern safety regulations do not allow for the sort of weaving that our current Junction requires.
That's why the Bridges version of SJ is such an unprecedented monster. They had to create 23 lanes to avoid unsafe crossovers.
By removing 64 from the merge point, the same safety and efficiency can be achieved with a lot fewer ramps and approaches.
If you take a look at the 8664 plan in the study, you'll notice that it calls for the 265/64 interchange in the New Albany area to be reworked to avoid bottlenecks there from any increase in through traffic. That's included in the 8664 cost estimate.
Step one in all this is to build the East End bridge, which will alleviate much of the strain of the Kennedy and Jeffersonville backups that CSD mentions all by itself. Hoosiers simply won't have to line up to catch 64 to the east end. The rest can be greatly simplified via 8664.
Kulash confirmed, or at least speculated, that the second downtown bridge was indeed a political maneuver, as the numbers show it's not necessary to solve traffic flow problems.
Something else that was mentioned: After all the scare tactics concerning the danger of changes to the record of decision, it turns out that some of the things being discussed by the Bridges Coalition (tolls, for instance) would require an amended record of decision as well.
Again, from a truck driver,most every city in the country has realized that truck traffic is heaviest at the evening rush hour especially.
ReplyDeleteYou add this to the local traffic load and you have extreme congestion issues.
When those semis are routed around the dowtown areas to the outskirts, yes those areas will see an increase but the tradeoff is a smoother flow through downtown. And understand, it is only a tradeoff.
Without seriously addressing a public transportation system in conjuction with rerouting auto traffic, the issue basiclly only gets shifted to another location, not solved.
One more point while I'm at it. Unless the masses want to go back in time to having a garden in their backyard, making their own clothes, and molding their own bricks, trucks are here to stay.
We've successfully lobbyed to get most of the railroad infracstructure pulled up in this country to make room for highways, strip malls, and housing subdivisions.
The point being, if you wear it, eat it, drive it, or play with it, a truck brought it to you in one fashion or another.
The Highwayman makes a good point. Kulash and 8664 are convinced like thousands of other people that mass transit is the the only true, long-term solution to affordable, efficient movement of the population around the metro.
ReplyDeleteKulash said that more cities around the country are slowly figuring that out, too, and pointed to Charlotte, NC, as an example. The idea of light rail had no traction at all there not long ago but they just opened their light rail system with five major lines simultaneously.
8664 works well as a precursor to mass transit. As Kulash said, it works from the viewpoint of "do no harm", meaning that 8664 leaves ample rail corridors with a smaller footprint rather than constructing huge additional concrete barriers.
By focusing on downtown revitalization, it also encourages the type of dense, centrally located development that's necessary for mass transit to work well. The Bridges project does the exact opposite.
The one good thing about our previous (and thoughtless) train abandonment is that it's left us with a wealth of unused rights-of-way that could come in handy for light rail.
The presentation last night was informative and, in a sense, inspirational.The most striking illustration,for me, was an engineering rendering of the end-product of the Bridges project; it looked like an Escher print drawn, perhaps, in his Rounded-Angle Period. The alternative, 8664 outline, which was shown first, and, frankly, looked confusing, suddenly, in comparison, shone with elegant simplicity.
ReplyDeleteThe efforts of the 8664 backers are important for many of the reasons already mentioned. Reclaiming the riverfront and providing a livable, walkable environment are worthy goals. The larger payoff comes,however, when the public transit elements are added to the area "created" by a diminished footprint of the current tangle of Expressways. Then densification and "commercification" of those neighborhoods, Portland, Downtown and Butchertown can begin in earnest. The advantage to us, who live in Indiana, is that a vibrant urban scene will be available and accessible to us. If we take advantage of the larger movement then-underway in Louisville we can have connectors to the transit system which will allow us to grow in a sensible fashion as well. People often speak about the Ohio River being wider than it looks; I think, surprisingly, it might not be so wide if you don't have to drive across it in a car.
Another interesting point from the presentation was the anomaly that, in places where expressways have been removed, traffic has confounded the traffic engineers notions by not bogging down as much as simply evaporating.
Roger. I give you credit, you certainly never dodge the controversial issues!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of stonewalling, today's C-J reports:
ReplyDelete"Ohio River Bridges Project spokeswoman Kristen Jordan Leggett said officials with the project won't be commenting on the 8664 plan."
Now that much of what you've told the community over the past couple years has been refuted by a nationally respected traffic engineer, what say you?
Um....
I agree wholeheartedly in the 8664 plan and have had a sign in my yard for some time now.
ReplyDeleteThe east end bridge is long overdue and I-64 along the riverfront certainly needs to disappear.
There's a lot of money at stake and people aren't going to make changes easily.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at the 8664 plan in the study, you'll notice that it calls for the 265/64 interchange in the New Albany area to be reworked to avoid bottlenecks there from any increase in through traffic. That's included in the 8664 cost estimate.
ReplyDeleteThat was my big question. Thanks for pointing that out.
I agree, Brandon. The 265/64 exchange could use work even if nothing else happens as it's already a bottleneck.
ReplyDeleteI could be mistaken, but I've not seen anything to suggest that it's included in the current Bridges project, which would also seem to encourage more traffic in that area.
Crap, now I have to change my position on 8664! Thanks a lot Doc.(grin)
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I think Ceece made mention of strange bedfellows yesterday. I never really thought I'd be in bed with HB and I'm quite sure he didn't either!
ReplyDeleteThe only question: which one of us has the fleas and which one is about to get them?
HB was already in a "rock" video featuring pornography...now he's in bed with another man...and a liberal to boot. The scandal! [joke]
ReplyDeleteHas anyone mentioned reworking the 265/65 interchange? That might need work as well under 8664. I'm certainly no engineer, but the impact of either project on those interchanges, and the cost needed to address it, seems like a key issue that isn't always addressed in the sound bytes.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the best "feasibility study" was performed this past summer when I-64 WAS closed for 6 weeks.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I didn't miss it all. It gave me an opportunity to see for myself if 8664 would work.
I do most of my business in Louisville, and some days bounce back and forth a few times a day.
It might have a added a few minutes more to my trips downtown, but this was considering I was traveling on roads that were not designed for efficiency.
I'd love to see this project become a reality, but I would have to wonder how deep the corruption in KY runs and who is going to financially gain from bridge project. I've learned now that when they say it will take 10 years to complete the bridge project, what they're really saying is a couple years to build it and 6-8 years to paint it!
Our house is divded over the 8664 issue. My husband says it will add an extra 20 minutes to his drive home; and I say -- who cares about that? He maintains New Albany will be the only town affected by this (may be true; not sure); but I would rather have what 8664 proposes than that dastardly design we now have; and I truly would like to save the riverfront for my grandchildren, etc.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article.