I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway

[Beltway]

Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.

Always an excuse lol... Seriously though continuously narrowing down making Mobile some special case that is unique from other metros isn't a good point.

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

Money doesn't grow on trees.

[froggie]

PS, Alabama is building(or was) a 5 billion dollar road with no tolls. You thank the feds for that and stopping it.

PPS:  Wasn't the Feds that stopped it.  Was Alabama realizing that they could never afford it nor a number of other wish list items they cancelled at the same time.

[Plutonic Panda]

Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.

Always an excuse lol... Seriously though continuously narrowing down making Mobile some special case that is unique from other metros isn't a good point.

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

Money doesn't grow on trees.

This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.

[Plutonic Panda]

PS, Alabama is building(or was) a 5 billion dollar road with no tolls. You thank the feds for that and stopping it.

PPS:  Wasn't the Feds that stopped it.  Was Alabama realizing that they could never afford it nor a number of other wish list items they cancelled at the same time.

That wasn't how I read it. Funding dried up from the fed end and the state is still actively pursuing that project.

[Beltway]

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.

OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?

[Rothman]

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.

OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?

FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER).  The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.

[Beltway]

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.

OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?

FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER).  The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.

I am just trying to address the complaints here about why it may be difficult to fund this project without tolls.

If it is a "a nationally important project" then the federal government ought provide at least 50% of the funds.  Of course as you suggest, FHWA doesn't have the kind of funding even for Interstate highway projects that it did in the past, say before about 1995.

This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.

[Plutonic Panda]

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.

OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?

FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER).  The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.

I am just trying to address the complaints here about why it may be difficult to fund this project without tolls.

If it is a "a nationally important project" then the federal government ought provide at least 50% of the funds.  Of course as you suggest, FHWA doesn't have the kind of funding even for Interstate highway projects that it did in the past, say before about 1995.

This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.

i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.

[Beltway]

This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.

i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.

Every state receives an annual allocation amount in FHWA funding, and there are various rules as to how they can distribute it within their state.

A state can't just tell them to "pay up" if it means funding beyond the annual allocations.

The original Interstate system is old enough that it takes a massive portion of the FHWA allocations just for a state to fund projects to rehabilitate and replace old pavements and bridges.

[Plutonic Panda]

This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.

i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.

Every state receives an annual allocation amount in FHWA funding, and there are various rules as to how they can distribute it within their state.

A state can't just tell them to "pay up" if it means funding beyond the annual allocations.

The original Interstate system is old enough that it takes a massive portion of the FHWA allocations just for a state to fund projects to rehabilitate and replace old pavements and bridges.

I am well aware of these things.

[Rothman]

Hm.  My first reaction was that it would be quite rare for a large project to not be assigned federal funding, but here in NY, NYSDOT and NYCDOT have turned to personal income tax bond funding (state borrowing money) to do a couple of major projects on federal-aid eligible highways.  Wonder if Alabama has done the same.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[sprjus4]

Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.

This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.

OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?

FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER).  The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.

I am just trying to address the complaints here about why it may be difficult to fund this project without tolls.

If it is a "a nationally important project" then the federal government ought provide at least 50% of the funds.  Of course as you suggest, FHWA doesn't have the kind of funding even for Interstate highway projects that it did in the past, say before about 1995.

This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.

i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.

Part of the issue is that of the $2 trillion needed, the current administration's proposal is to provide $200 million in traditional funding with the rest being backed up the private sector in the form of P3's - aka tolls. Quite frankly, I'd rather see a national gas tax increase. It's unpopular, including among people I know personally, but it's desperately needed if we are serious about rebuilding our infrastructure and keeping what's toll free now that way in the future. If we ever did a tax increase though, progress would need to be shown all around the country in a 5-15 year period with all these massive improvement projects to prove to people it's being used appropriately and to educate why it's needed. Agreed, I'm not against toll roads either, but I'm against converting a lot of existing free interstates into toll roads simply to fund this infrastructure plan. The interstate system was never meant to include toll roads with the exception of the original turnpikes and a few others, and it still shouldn't become that way.

[Beltway]

Part of the issue is that of the $2 trillion needed, the current administration's proposal is to provide $200 million in traditional funding with the rest being backed up the private sector in the form of P3's - aka tolls. Quite frankly, I'd rather see a national gas tax increase. It's unpopular, including among people I know personally, but it's desperately needed if we are serious about rebuilding our infrastructure and keeping what's toll free now that way in the future.

In a general sense that seems logical, but there have been many calls for getting the federal government out of funding highways for the last 40 years or more, especially in the last 20 years or so, and devolving it to the states and localities.

FHWA still provides about $45 billion per year in federal-aid funding to the states.  But by keeping the federal highway user tax rates static since 1992, that has caused a steady devolvement of highway funding to the states and localities.

This is from 2015 and quotes summaries from a few years before, but it shows how heavy is the funding levels from the states and localities.

The revenue collected in 2012 from all levels of government for highways and bridges was $216.6 billion, as illustrated in Exhibit 6-1.  Of the total revenues generated, the Federal government contributed $42.8 billion; State governments, $106.3 billion; and local governments, $67.5 billion.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr/chap6.cfm

[Plutonic Panda]

Just curious but would anyone here support near European prices for gas?

[goobnav]

Just curious but would anyone here support near European prices for gas?

Yeah when honest politicians can be trusted with the money, so that would be hell no!!

[codyg1985]

Hm.  My first reaction was that it would be quite rare for a large project to not be assigned federal funding, but here in NY, NYSDOT and NYCDOT have turned to personal income tax bond funding (state borrowing money) to do a couple of major projects on federal-aid eligible highways.  Wonder if Alabama has done the same.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Not that I am aware of.

It is a shame that the bridge probably won't be built for a long time, but I also believe the toll was too high for locals to swallow.

Maybe as a start Mobile and Baldwin Counties could institute impact fees for new developments that would go towards the bridge.

[HemiCRZ]

I don't think anyone has pointed this out in here, but if you look on the website for the Bayway, it's essentially dead.

The Alabama Department of Transportation on August 28, 2019 ceased project development efforts on the proposed Mobile River Bridge & Bayway.

https://mobileriverbridge.com/

What a sad end to a project that could have put a stop to the endless bottle-necking at the tunnel. It's a shame that citizens here in the south don't understand economics.

[Beltway]

I don't think anyone has pointed this out in here, but if you look on the website for the Bayway, it's essentially dead.

The Alabama Department of Transportation on August 28, 2019 ceased project development efforts on the proposed Mobile River Bridge & Bayway.

https://mobileriverbridge.com/
What a sad end to a project that could have put a stop to the endless bottle-necking at the tunnel. It's a shame that citizens here in the south don't understand economics.

Why don't they list a reason?

[sprjus4]

I don't think anyone has pointed this out in here, but if you look on the website for the Bayway, it's essentially dead.

The Alabama Department of Transportation on August 28, 2019 ceased project development efforts on the proposed Mobile River Bridge & Bayway.

https://mobileriverbridge.com/
What a sad end to a project that could have put a stop to the endless bottle-necking at the tunnel. It's a shame that citizens here in the south don't understand economics.

Why don't they list a reason?

Likely heavy local opposition to the tolling plan, and the lack of ability to get traditional funding.

[Beltway]

Why don't they list a reason?

Likely heavy local opposition to the tolling plan, and the lack of ability to get traditional funding.

What about the RE/T groups and the AHA/O groups?

[Plutonic Panda]

I am glad this project was killed. A new bridge is sorely needed but no tolls on interstates. This, like I-81(VA) and many Texas highways will still happen it will just take longer.

[sprjus4]

I am glad this project was killed. A new bridge is sorely needed but no tolls on interstates. This, like I-81(VA) and many Texas highways will still happen it will just take longer.

I-81 in Virginia had its tolls scraped, but it also increased the fuel tax along the corridor + other fees, so the project is still getting done just as fast. Bonds are being issued, etc. except the fuel tax + fees will repay them instead of tolls.

An appropriate approach IMO. It'd be a shame to see tolls on I-81 after it being free for decades.

[Beltway]

I am glad this project was killed. A new bridge is sorely needed but no tolls on interstates. This, like I-81(VA) and many Texas highways will still happen it will just take longer.

I-81 in Virginia had its tolls scraped, but it also increased the fuel tax along the corridor + other fees, so the project is still getting done just as fast. Bonds are being issued, etc. except the fuel tax + fees will repay them instead of tolls.

They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls.  Penny wise, pound foolish.

[mvak36]

So I guess with this project being canceled, there will be an additional 125 million dollars of INFRA grant money next year?

[The Ghostbuster]

Had the Interstate 10 toll bridge project gone forward, I wonder if the parallel US 90/98 roadway bridges would have been tolled as well (in order to discourage shunpiking)?