Photo Credit: Bart Evans, CC BY 2.0
I have been a steadfast critic of the project to build two new bridges across the Ohio River in Louisville for over a decade. In fact, my first critical post on the bridges proposal was put up in 2007 less than six months after starting my original Urbanophile blog.
The end result was even worse than I anticipated. The project has proven to be a money waster of the highest order, and in fact by far the biggest American transportation boondoggle I can identify in the 21st century so far.
Part of the agreement between Indiana and Kentucky to build the bridges was that they would do official before and after surveys of traffic to determine the impact of the new bridges on traffic flow. The study was published in August of this year.
The result? The two states spent $1.3 billion dollars to build a parallel I-65 span in downtown Louisville that doubled the capacity of that crossing. After spending that money, traffic fell by 50%.
Let me repeat that: Indiana and Kentucky spent $1.3 billion to double the capacity of a road while traffic levels were cut in half.
Here’s a chart showing the before and after traffic levels on the bridges.
And here’s a percent change look.
The project doubled the size of the I-65 crossing and built a new East End crossing that didn’t previously exist. Each of these were around $1.3 billion separately.
What happened is that to pay for (part) of the bridges, a toll was added to the previously free I-65 bridge, and a new crossing in the East End was also tolled. This simply led to a diversion of traffic to the other two bridges that didn’t have tolls. In fact, the existing free I-64 Sherman Minton Bridge now carries more traffic than all of the toll bridges combined. (Unsurprisingly, there’s talk of temporarily closing that bridge for rehabilitation).
Total cross-river traffic has actually fallen since 2013, albeit only slightly. But traffic on the Clark Memorial (2nd Street) Bridge is up 75%. This is traffic choosing the free route to get to downtown. This happened even though the Clark Bridge has seen its number of lanes cut in half due to a lengthy repainting project. Traffic on the I-64 bridge increased by 23%. There’s no percent change on the East End bridge since it didn’t previously exist.
I have always said that the East End bridge made sense conceptually because it added a crossing where one did not exist previously and where traffic would otherwise have to go many miles out of the way to get across the river. The actual bridge was too expensive (also $1.3 billion or so), in part because of a ludicrous tunnel built on the Kentucky side, but at least the basic bridge was a sound project.
But an expanded downtown crossing never made sense. Not only has it proven to be a transportation waste, it is a negative in other ways. For example, the project doubled the width of interstate overpasses through downtown Louisville, creating a bigger barrier between downtown and the booming NuLu district to the East.
Most gallingly, Louisville decided to double down on freeways at a time when most cities are looking at ways to reduce the negative impact of freeways on downtowns and even tear them out entirely in some cases. A very viable proposal to do just that in Louisville called 8664 was rejected by policymakers, who insisted on spending $1.3 billion on this disaster.
Not only was this project a colossal waste of $1.3 billion. Not only did it harm the urban fabric of downtown Louisville. But there’s also reason to believe it diverted economic activity away from Louisville.
Looking at the numbers in table 3.1., it looks like truck traffic across the river has fallen by almost a third since 2013. Here’s the chart:
20% of 224,700 is 44,940. 14% of 220,200 is 30,828. That’s 14,112 trucks (i.e., commercial traffic) gone. Where did they go? If you are a region that’s banking on the distribution industry for a big part of your future blue collar employment growth, the tolls on these bridges can’t be good news. That’s particularly true when no surrounding competitor city has tolls.
I don’t generally like to say “I told you so” – but in this case I’ll make an exception. My analysis of this bridge project was known to decision makers well in advance of the project moving forward. I know that for a fact. What’s more, probably nothing harmed my standing in certain political circles more than this reportage. The 8664 idea was very widely circulated and understood by everyone in Louisville leadership.
This boondoggle didn’t happen by accident. It wasn’t a result of ignorance. It was well known in advance that it was a bad idea. It was a deliberate, conscious choice.
The fact that these states found $1.3 billion to spend on this downtown bridge is one reason why I will never again accept the “there’s no money for that” excuse on anything again. States keep finding plenty of money to spend on things of little to no value – like this bridges project.
I’m not hostile to road spending, so my opposition to this project was never based on an ideological opposition to cars but because it made no transportation or financial sense. It doesn’t make sense to build new roads in stagnant or shrinking places and we should be cautious about speculative projects in an age where we don’t know what the pending possible disruption of driverless cars might bring, but I’m a big advocate of building more roads in rapidly growing places. Unfortunately, the project selection process in most states seems to alight upon the worst projects while the best go unfunded.
Is there another place in the country where somebody spent $1.3 billion to double the capacity of a road whose traffic then fell by half? I can’t think of another example remotely like this. It may well be that something like the MTA East Side Access in New York has seen cost overruns that dwarf this. But at least that project will be useful when it’s done. This is a total waste. That’s why the Louisville downtown bridge is the biggest transportation boondoggle of the 21st century to date.
By rights I should be writing this for a major national publication instead of putting it on my personal web site. But I love Louisville and Southern Indiana (my hometown) and don’t want to create negative press for them. I just want it known for the record that this did not have to happen.
“This boondoggle didn’t happen by accident. It wasn’t a result of ignorance. It was well known in advance that it was a bad idea. It was a deliberate, conscious choice.”
So why did the project go forward, in spite of the fact that it was a bad idea? Is corruption supposed to be the reason that is read between the lines?
Not exactly corruption. It’s that the contractors and construction workers make big money. Even without bribes, they have influence.
Might one call it a less crooked form of corruption, for example, ‘institutional infrastructure pimpimg’?
Many things went on with this project that where not transparent. Sub divisions impacted where given smoke and mirror answers. Look at the so called sound walls. They look like someone was drunk when putting them up. Home now have a wonderful view of truck tops. After a little digging you will fine the elevation was changed without telling those impacted. What happened to that money?? You just have to look at the electric buses that appeared downtown. Then you have to ask? Why was there a secret , settlement of some sort, that can not be opened for ten years. With the people who where fighting the bridge.. Why didn’t they take the bridge through land instead going under ground. To save some landscaping that know one cares about. and a mansion that know one wants. Please if you keep digging, there are many things that will be uncovered. The tunnel has been under repair since day one.
That actually is corruption-contractors, constructions workers, lawyers, architects, surveyors, etc. made over a BILLION dollars on something that is actually harmful.
What pushed the project forward after decades of controversy was the economic collapse of 2008. The project was actually pared down. Lots of whistles and bells had been added over the years (mostly at the request of bridge opponents) to make the project more expensive in the belief that it would make the project impractical. After the crash, changes were made to make the bridges project less expensive, and it was passed as a “shovel ready” economic stimulus.
I wish that the writer had gone further on this article. Give names of the primary politions that screwed the project up. It was originally supposed to be only the eastend bridge to complete the I465 freeway. It was delayed for more than 30 years because special interest groups (likely weathy political doners) didn’t want the final sections of road for the eastend bridge to be too close to their homes. The downtown bridge addition was added as a “compromise”. The added cost of the second bridge required the use of tolls to fund the project. And to make matters worse, the downtown bridge was constructed first. All of the traffic headaches and enormous traffic delays during that bridge’s construction (about 2 years) would have been eleviated if the east-end bridge had been completed first. I my opinion this was done because completing the eastend bridge first would have proven that the downtown bridge was not needed.
The ‘boondoogle” is the funding of roads in America. Gas taxes and car registration fees don’t even pay half of the cost of roads in many states.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/us-transportation-funding-is-not-created-equal/534327/
Making road users suddenly pay the real cost of a road in one place can’t work. Making all road users pay for the real cost of all roads they use will work. That means much higher gas taxes and registration fees. Taxing the value of a vehicle is another way for road users to pay for the real cost of the roads they use.
They are actually rioting in France right now over increased diesel taxes. “The People” are not ALWAYS right.
French road users actually pay for the roads they use. They’re protesting the suddenness of change to fuel and car taxes.
Fair enough, and good point. But there is a lot of “We detest all taxes” rhetoric, as well.
I also read that it is part of a decarbonization strategy.
There are other issues in France. Rural speed limits are low and there are camera enforcement sites with heavy fines. Arizona, under Napolitano, had similar hated speed cameras. It’s not just the gas tax.
What is it with boondoggles in Louisville? Haven’t you also excoriated U of L’s basketball arena as a big money waster?
Louisville punches above its weight with boondoggles. Although the arena was clearly a financial train wreck, at least it has had a generally positive impact on downtown.
The empty downtown bridges (which I can see from my office window) are in a league of their own. despite 12 lanes are more crossing the river, each road it connects to chokes down to two or three lanes immediately, and traffic crawls away from the river as it always has. The crush of traffic to use the 2nd St., Bridge jams downtown traffic every afternoon. The gigantic overpasses or at least useful in providing shelter to the downtown homeless population at least partially displaced by the construction. With greater visibility, there has been a growing effort to find real solutions to that problem.
You were not alone in foreseeing this situation. You know what? Vote! and Vote intelligently. Get good candidates to run for office.
One thing I’ve wondered about is how cost-benefit analysis deals with the transition disruption during construction, which would seem often to be a large part of the true cost. In this case, maybe it wasn’t just transition. Maybe distributors decided to change routes because the construction delays and will just never change back. Could that be as important as the tolls to why commercial traffic has dwindled?
I wonder if the following has happened too: city decides to refurbish its downtown parking, so it closes it all down for a year to rejigger it. Shoppers vanish and never come back to use the new parking.
I for one, and I can only speak for myself. I used to cross over to Indiana a lot. I have friends in New Albany etc., and often I would just go for a drive, as well… I used to live in Indianapolis- so I would go back there to see friends and/or have dinner at Hellas Cafe.
Then, starting with all the construction, not just on the bridges project, but on the freeways and everything else in downtown- I started avoiding the whole mess. Then the tolls are another reason to avoid crossing the river. (Even though the 2nd Street Bridge is just as easy for me to take as 65.) As a result- what used to be many trips, has now dwindled down to an “ONLY WHEN I HAVE TOO”. The years of (still ongoing) construction in downtown, and on the highways, has made me not only more apt… but more content – to just stay as close to home as possible.
Please write this piece for a major publication. We must hold accountable the people who wasted our money and harmed our city. And next time you write the article, please add the names of the people who are to blame. People need to know.
“By rights I should be writing this for a major national publication instead of putting it on my personal web site. But I love Louisville and Southern Indiana (my hometown) and don’t want to create negative press for them. ”
I agree with Jackie, this is a piece that deserves to be written. Just put some contrast in your piece good Louisville/ bad Louisville if you are afraid of your article sounding like a hit piece.
Or write it to warn Cincinnati, which is hall-bent on making the same mistakes.
Anne, we’re not allowed to mention the “C” city on the Ohio River in this forum. It’s residents get very upset when you do.
No. The “ban” on mentioning said city is because every single topic became a soapbox for a nameless forum member fulminating endlessly on the unique and special failings of said city’s residents.
I thin Anne’s comment is relevant, timely, and appropriate. But Aaron will determine that
So were my comments. It was the private complaints of one Cincinnatian that’s the issue.
Nah. You’ve annoyed Aaron and his readers by adding irrelevant and off-topic anti-Cincinnati rants to many posts here, and that’s the issue.
I’m not anti-Cincinnati. Cincinnati is just really that dysfunctional.
Could this scenario be framed as a successful congestion (or de-congestion) pricing scheme? Tolling seems to be keeping the highway bridge gloriously free of traffic. I’m curious whether Jarrett Walker would frame this as a success or a failure.
If I were a daily or frequent commuter across the free US 31 bridge, I would be worried about accelerated degradation of the structure resulting from increased traffic over this short time period.
I find it hard to believe that the region will be content with the current state of affairs. The obvious move is to find a way to toll the remaining bridge crossings so that nobody can avoid a toll. Claiming some structural damage on the Clark Bridge is one way to do that. The I-64 bridge already had one emergency closure and may be closed again in the near future for several months for a rehabilitation.
How prescient. A river tug and coal barges ran into the Clark bridge over the holidays…
I’m surprised at the decline in truck traffic since the I-65 bridge is the most direct route between the UPS Air hub at the Louisville Airport and all the new distribution centers in River Ridge (the old Indiana Army Ammunition Plant), which is on the Indiana side between the I-65 and east end bridges.
But maybe the 7 mile difference to the free I-64 bridge is worth the toll savings for large trucks. Or perhaps the distribution centers on the Indiana side don’t really serve Louisville and Kentucky, and their products don’t arrive by UPS Air.
It’s because there is little long distance traffic heading west of Louisville on i-64. It has to be the least used interstate in America.
Nah. I-74 between Indy and Champaign-Urbana and I-72 from there to Hannibal, MO.
Yeeeeeeep.
Your first piece on the bridges project was my introduction to your blog when I was living in Indiana and I’ve been a dedicated reader ever since. You deserve to take a victory lap on this one, although I’m sure you’d much rather have been listened to in 2007 than to say you’ve been proven right now.
Thanks for your hard work over the years. Maybe this project will serve as an effective warning for the next boondoggle (he said naively).
Joe Cortright was hired to stop a similar boondoggle in PDX, and buried in the detail he found studies showing tolling there would reduce traffic below current levels, obviating the need for a new bridge. Portland is now looking at tolling throughout the freeway system, which is now clogged by 3 pm everyday. There are simply more people living there than ever before, and it shows on the freeways.
I do think center city dwellers get a special satisfaction from seeing these tolls imposed on suburbanites stuck in traffic. After all, they’ve chosen to live in a more expensive place, and this quantifies something of what they get back.
Well, Aaron, I hope this project disabuses you of the notion that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was a fiscal conservative. It’s clear that state Departments of Transportation are in need of overhaul and a revisioning of their purpose from providing Levels of Service to motor vehicles to true multi-modal agencies.
Is that “ludicrous tunnel” the one being used as an example by the Rethink 65/70 folks. I know it was intended to refuce impacts to historic properties. Why do you think it’s ludicrous?
Connie, the tunnel in Louisville was added as an attempted poison pill. The East End bridge goes through Louisville’s equivalent of Zionsville, so there was a lot of high powered opposition. They got a house listed on the National Register using dubious means in an attempt to try to stop it. (My reading suggests the house should never have been listed as a historic property). This tunnel goes under a portion of the estate (not the house, incidentally) and was projected to cost in excess of $250 million.
The Rethink I-65/I-70 proposal is not a tunnel, it’s a trench. Unlike the Louisville tunnel, it’s designed to add significant development value to the surrounding real estate in order to be a net economic positive. This is very different from the Louisville situation.
Interesting. I remember a bit of that project and thought it went under a historic district. Thanks for clarifying.
Funny how your solution to this problem is just to toll the remaining bridges. As a southern Indiana guy, you should know that the traffic will just be diverted to Cincinnati or southern Illinois. Tolling doesn’t work around here because there is nothing worth paying all that extra money to get to. It’s bad for business. I know this will be unpopular opinion here but I know many on both sides of the river who hate the tolls. Just one more reason to avoid Louisville and spending money there (and I have friends in Louisville and family in Kentucky). On the plus side, I have personally spent a lot of money in New Albany and it’s definitely seeing a resurgence in investment. City dwellers think suburbanites are evil, but the city needs the suburbanites to spend money downtown in order to survive. You might say the $2.05/$4.10 is nothing to get across the bridge, but add the $ for parking and the $ for the night out and a lot of people just say “screw it” and go to another place for their night out, their shopping, their discretionary spending. Just ask Indianapolis, Carmel and Hamilton county take more of the regions economic “pie” all the time. Their slice gets bigger and bigger. Expect the same in Louisville. Especially if all the bridges are tolled.
“the city” increasingly doesn’t need the “suburbanites to spend money downtown in order to survive.” You’re describing two separate economies. Professional class and younger people are creating a separate economy in cities from those in suburbs. Incomes in cities are rising while their stagnant or falling in suburbs. You’re describing the situation before the financial crisis, not today.
Someone from New Albany would drive to Cincinnati in order to get to Louisville? Seriously?
Or drive to Indianapolis or Cincinnati from New Albany to get “big city” dining and attractions? Unlikely if $4 in tolls is a barrier; the gas cost would be more than that.
I’m not from new Albany for one. I’m from the south Indy suburbs and spend more time on River row in Jeff/Clarksville or new Albany than I do in Louisville now. I live right between the river and Carmel Indiana. It takes so long to get to the north side of Indy that I opt for Louisville sometimes. My family lives in Lexington. I take 74 south instead without tolls. The city economy you speak of is fragile and built upon millennial debt instead of real wealth. We will see who wins. I think urbanized suburbs win over mediocre yet high crime cities like Louisville. Louisville isn’t worth $4.10 one way and toll by mail sucks.
“wins?” It’s a zero sum game? One must “lose”? Your choice of words says all I need to know.
Especially given that us Boomers are beginning to leave this moral coil! 🙂
Not mentioned here is the disastrous handling of the tolls. It is not uncommon to never receive the original toll in the mail, only then 30-60 days later to receive it with a late fee or even worse, it being handed over to Collections to ding your credit score + late fees.
I was hoping somebody would mention this! Ongoing woes in collecting the tolls have lead to a change in toll management vendors. (I am not optimistic.) Personally, I use the 2nd Street Bridge and have NEVER used to the tolled bridges, partly because of the toll boondoggle.
What makes the Louisville boondoggle even worse is that other DOTs probably won’t even learn a lesson from it. In other Ohio River cities (ahem), similar projects are still moving forward that will simultaneously add capacity to and toll a previously free bridge.
Do you mean Evansville or is another city adding a toll bridge?
I gather from another comment that it is a bigger city, up-river.
Can we call it “the city that shall not be named”, like it is the Voldemort of US cities?
It IS like the Voldemort of cities! Very amusing…..
Please not the Blue Bridge (Owensboro, KY)!
Actually I think there is some discussion about tolling the new I-69 Ohio River bridge (and that it would replace the existing US41 bridge). Governor Holcomb’s announcement today may mitigate against that possibility, though.
We quit going to the malls in Louisville because of the tolls. Indiana will get ALL of our business now.
I don’t know who “we” is, but I very much doubt you were shopping in Louisville before. You can’t take back what you never gave in the first place.
Who knew a tolled superhighway between Jeffersonville, IN and Louisville wasn’t needed…
Neither was a “free” highway. We can’t have roads if people don’t pay for them and road users don’t pay half the cost of roads. Tolls are beside the point.
We don’t need some roads…
Nonsense. As exemplified by the commentary on Kokomo, we NEED do everything for the convenience of suburban drivers. Everything.
Boondoggle of the 21st C? Unfortunately there’s a lot to choose from. I throw the $1.5B inter-section and ramps between I-95 and the Pa. Turnpike, north Of Philly into the race. Much needed, ya well maybe. But $1.5B. Somebody should have a blog just to chart all the questionable transportation spending that goes on in this fair country.
LOL. THIS is the kind of boondoggle we should be talking about more.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/stderr/2018/12/04/wanna-see-what-3bn-looks-like/
At least roads have some marginal utility. The F22? Not so much.
It’s almost certain that the F-35 will destroy the Air Force by eating its entire budget in a couple of gulps. The plane is not just overpriced as a plane it’s dramatically, hugely, spectacularly overpriced for its mission. The F-35 will almost certainly never do anything but drop bombs on mostly undefended targets; its amazing stealth will be irrelevant because guys with flip flops and blankets don’t have powerful antiaircraft radar. If an F-35 is ever taken under fire, it will probably be ground fire from AK-47s (which will miss) or perhaps a 1980s-vintage MANPAD which will go right up its tailpipe because of its massive heat signature. So, if its mission is to “go blow up 10 guys” and those guys cost an enemy $10,000 – the F-35 is a $200 million weapons system delivering a $1 million bomb. It’s a great technology demo but it makes a little bit less sense than Elon Musk’s launching a car into deep space for a mere $100 million.
What were the conclusions of the Traffic and Revenue study about financing this project? That’s where I would look for answers.
Mr. Renn,
a) For this to be what you claim it is, you first must demonstrate that previous activity was worth it’s costs. You’re assuming the the initial measurement is 100% value. Since the cost for crossing the bridge was $0 / trip + wear and tear and gas, basic economics tells us that it’s more likely than not that a considerable amount of that traffic wasn’t worth it’s cost.
If I lost 50 pounds, it’s not necessarily bad nor good. It depends on where things are coming from.
b) What is the value of the lowered risk? What would the cost be to the city if the existing bridge had to be shut down?
c) NuLu’s still booming. The factors driving people’s decisions to locate there are not affected by the increased gap in walk ability. Keep in mind that there already was a gap. The hypothesis is wrong; drop it.
Last Republican Louisville Mayor, 1969. Metro government has been Democrat since inception of 2003. Think Detroit on the Ohio…
Yet the City that shall not be named upstream is Hard Right and still does many things poorly. Simple minded partisanship is simple minded.
This was a project undertaken by the (Republican) state governments of Indiana and Kentucky. It had nothing to do with who was in charge in Louisville.
Technically the states implemented it, but the genesis of the downtown bridge was from Jerry Abramson, the former mayor of Louisville and a Democrat. In his first stint as mayor, prior to the city-county merger, he saw the East End bridge as a threat because it would allow traffic to bypass the municipality of Louisville. He proposed the downtown bridge as an alternative to an East End bridge because it would have continued funneling all traffic through downtown Louisville. (That’s the nominal story as I recall it from the time – but it’s possible Abramson was in fact acting at least partially at the behest of the wealthy and influential residents of Prospect, who subsequently became the locus of opposition to the East End bridge).
If Indiana never made the deal to pay so much toward the bridges over Kentucky’s river and the tunnel on the Kentucky side, the project wouldn’t have happened. (I believe I read that here…)