The Brent Spence Questions No One is Asking

Our state and federal transportation agencies don't want us looking beyond what they claim will be the Brent Spence Bridge Corridor Project's traffic and economic benefits. But they've presented these benefits without also explaining the risks.

The new Brent Spence project is a "progressive design-build," meaning the states can update and change their plans at any time. Despite what ODOT and KYTC are telling our leaders, this plan is not set in stone, and it's not too late to demand the states fully investigate the risks of their plan in addition to the alleged benefits.

Below is a menu of talking points to share with your family, friends, neighbors, community leaders and elected officials, to make sure they have all the facts as the project gets started.

Ask if they're aware that...

This project is more than just a new bridge. It will double the size of the highway (and all its existing harms).

The recently increased $4.4 billion price tag only includes the new bridge, which will double the number of lanes crossing the Ohio River from eight to 16. But the plans also include widening the highway approaches on both sides of the river for a stretch of up to eight miles.

The states still don't know what this will cost in dollars, but we can predict what it will cost our health and our environment. West End and other neighborhoods along I-75 already experience higher levels of asthma, ozone and rubber/plastic pollution. People with disabilities or no access to a car are already cut off from their neighbors on the other side of the highway.

Are we OK with making these problems worse?

The states have identified numerous new risks to human health and the environment.

In 2012 and again in 2024, the states identified numerous ways the Brent Spence Bridge Corridor expansion stands to cause additional harm to:

• 90 acres of urban forest

• six wetlands

• More than a dozen streams

• More than 50 acres of land (including 2.5 acres of park land)

• Air and water quality from increased car traffic (induced demand by doubling the highway's size)

• Increased strain on stormwater drainage and risk of sewer overflow

Despite knowing these risks, the states have chosen to ignore them.

The Federal Highway Administration decided these harms weren't "significant" enough to warrant further study and exempted ODOT and KYTC from providing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

A full EIS helps identify ways to reduce these known and still-unknown harms.

Do you agree these impacts aren't "significant?" Did you know a federal judge is still deciding whether ODOT and KYTC broke the law by skipping this step?

An EIS would reveal other unknown risks and plans for reducing harm.

The states' 2012 and 2024 assessments ignored several predictable impacts this highway expansion will have, including:

• Wider highways mean higher speeds and more dangerous driving habits

• New or increased light pollution created by doubling the highway lanes and visual impact of new bridge

• How these known environmental and health impacts will affect neighborhoods' local economies

An EIS would study ways to reduce these known and still-unknown impacts, such as:

• Increased regional transit access to reduce car traffic along the corridor

• Better pedestrian and bike infrastructure to (re)establish car-free connections to these neighborhoods

Why are these questions not worth investigating?

This project is throwing good money at bad transportation policy and will set us back decades.

We still don't know the full cost. The $4.4-billion price tag is just for the new bridge. The states still don't know how much the expanded highway approaches will cost in dollars (see above for the other costs).

ODOT and KYTC have touted this project as an economy stimulator and a job creator, but research shows car-centric transportation systems like the Brent Spence pale in comparison to transit-oriented development.

• Investing in public transit yield 2.5 times greater total employment impacts than spending on streets and highways and 31% more direct jobs per dollar than new highway construction.

• While highways tend to promote sprawl, weakening economic advantages, transit investments increase productivity, create more efficient labor markets, and lead to knowledge spillovers.

• Transit corridors move up to 15 times the amount of people as highways.

Doubling down on car-centric transportation doubles down on the known risks.

• The death rate per passenger mile in private automobiles is 20 times higher than train travel and 30 times higher than bus travel. These statistics, which are tragic, also translate into higher costs to public health and lost productivity costs.

• The instances of asthma and other respiratory morbidities caused and made worse by highways also create a drag on the local economy through lost productivity and a strain on the public health system by inducing costs that otherwise could be avoided.

Is this really the best use of our limited transportation dollars?

This project will do the most harm to our most vulnerable communities.

Research shows that individuals with limitations in activities of daily living (ADL), especially Black and Brown folks with high ADL limitation, are simultaneously exposed to disproportionately high levels of air pollution.

To proceed with the Brent Spence Bridge Corridor Project as designed is to say we are OK with worsening exposure to harmful environmental conditions for our disabled neighbors. It also says we are OK with expanding transportation infrastructure that makes it harder for them to access health care and other services to treat the effects of these exposures.

Neglecting the aging infrastructure we have in the city, such as our decrepit sidewalks, antiquated mobility device and pedestrian crossing design, low-amenity and no-amenity bus stops, inequitable west/east public transit access, slip lanes, and overwhelmingly car-centric transportation infrastructure overall makes using the federal dollars on highway expansion a slap to the face to our disabled neighbors and neighbors those of us without a car and those of us with disabilities.

Are we really OK with making life harder for our most vulnerable neighbors?

It's not too late to address these questions.

The states have committed to a "progressive build design," which means they can alter their plans at any point along the way.

The first step to correcting course is through an Environmental Impact Statement, to identify still-unknown risks and develop strategies to address and reduce the harm we know is in store.

Will you support our demand for a full EIS?