The plans for the bridge nominally show two auto/truck lanes, one dedicated bus lane, and one dedicated lane for rail in each direction.

 

Today, there are about 1,000 transit trips per day coming from Clermont County. So I'm suggesting that the bridge's bus lane will, after construction, be found to be unnecessary and will soon be converted to a third general auto/truck/bus lane. The train will never be built, and so there will eventually be four general auto/truck/bus lanes in each direction on the bridge over the Little Miami River Valley.

 

That's equal to the capacity of the Brent Spence.

 

 

That's your supposition, if what you say happens; then the project will be in violation of the R.O.D. In other words, that can't happen w/o a re-evaluation of the Environmental Clearance

 

 

The 74/75 and 75/Norwood Lateral interchanges may now be "part of a separate project." But viewed in context with the new Little Miami River bridge, the interchange at I-275, the new interchange at Madison and Red Bank Expressway, these, in the aggregate, appear to be the major set-pieces of new cross-regional interstate highway, I-74. When all of these major pieces are in place, it's just a matter of time and political will before Federal Interstate Highway shields go up on sections of I-75, Norwood Lateral, I-71, Red Bank Expressway, and re-aligned S.R. 32 designating them as the new shared/exclusive I-74 freeway.

 

I see a lot in the physical plans which tends to confirm this and nothing to deny it won't happen.

 

I am running out of air by restating this. SR 32 relocated and Red Bank Road are NOT being constructed to freeway standards. They are being constructed to somewhat a "high class status arterial"; such as a souped up Reed Hartman Highway or what is currently happening on Bypass 4 in Butler County. It will generally be an at-grade facility; boulevard type type road, with a grade separation at Madison Rd (I think), and a a grade separation @ US 50 where there is one currently. The Red Bank/SR 32 facility cannot be converted to an interstate simply by slapping shields on it. Nor can the Nor wood Lateral without major geometric improvements.

 

The I-74 extension you state simply cannot happen under the auspices of the current programmed projects and accepted and approved NEPA documents (ROD And EIS). If it happens, then more projects will be needed in the future as well as new Environmental Documentation will need to be cleared. That won't happen.

I looked for a typical section of the roadway in the environmental documentation, so far I haven't found one. Hopefully a little better outreach will happen so that folks know what exactly is being proposed, as it heads into Tier 2

 

The plans for the bridge nominally show two auto/truck lanes, one dedicated bus lane, and one dedicated lane for rail in each direction.

 

Today, there are about 1,000 transit trips per day coming from Clermont County. So I'm suggesting that the bridge's bus lane will, after construction, be found to be unnecessary and will soon be converted to a third general auto/truck/bus lane. The train will never be built, and so there will eventually be four general auto/truck/bus lanes in each direction on the bridge over the Little Miami River Valley.

 

That's equal to the capacity of the Brent Spence.

 

 

That's your supposition, if what you say happens; then the project will be in violation of the R.O.D. In other words, that can't happen w/o a re-evaluation of the Environmental Clearance

 

 

The 74/75 and 75/Norwood Lateral interchanges may now be "part of a separate project." But viewed in context with the new Little Miami River bridge, the interchange at I-275, the new interchange at Madison and Red Bank Expressway, these, in the aggregate, appear to be the major set-pieces of new cross-regional interstate highway, I-74. When all of these major pieces are in place, it's just a matter of time and political will before Federal Interstate Highway shields go up on sections of I-75, Norwood Lateral, I-71, Red Bank Expressway, and re-aligned S.R. 32 designating them as the new shared/exclusive I-74 freeway.

 

I see a lot in the physical plans which tends to confirm this and nothing to deny it won't happen.

 

I am running out of air by restating this. SR 32 relocated and Red Bank Road are NOT being constructed to freeway standards. They are being constructed to somewhat a "high class status arterial"; such as a souped up Reed Hartman Highway or what is currently happening on Bypass 4 in Butler County. It will generally be an at-grade facility; boulevard type type road, with a grade separation at Madison Rd (I think), and a a grade separation @ US 50 where there is one currently. The Red Bank/SR 32 facility cannot be converted to an interstate simply by slapping shields on it. Nor can the Nor wood Lateral without major geometric improvements.

 

The I-74 extension you state simply cannot happen under the auspices of the current programmed projects and accepted and approved NEPA documents (ROD And EIS). If it happens, then more projects will be needed in the future as well as new Environmental Documentation will need to be cleared. That won't happen.

 

Once all the interchanges and the eight-lane bridge over the Little Miami River are buit, ODOT will start another environmental study aimed at converting sections of I-75 and I-71, the Norwood Lateral, the Red Bank Expressway and the (new) Little Miami Parkway into I-74. Will happen sooner rather than later.

 

Note this statement: "The I-74 extension you state simply cannot happen under the auspices of the current programmed projects ... " Sure, totally agree. Can't happen currently. But a subsequent action could easily enable it. And will.

We won't see any work this decade.

 

Note this statement: "The I-74 extension you state simply cannot happen under the auspices of the current programmed projects ... " Sure, totally agree. Can't happen currently. But a subsequent action could easily enable it. And will.

 

I don't think a subsequent action can easily enable it. Considerable amount of funding will have to be found. Also, an agency cannot obtain clearance for a "Phase 1" of a project if is part and parcel of a larger facility. NEPA requires the ultimate build facility be the one that is permitted (e.g. ODOT cannot do the EA for a super 2 lane road on a 4 lane R/W that will ultimately be a freeway without considering the environmental impacts for the full built out freeway). In the case of the EC, even if they reserve space for a full interchange now, the EIS needs to be based on the full freeway build out.

 

^ I'm sure current plans contemplate the environmentally pristine Little Miami "Parkway." And bike paths. Hiking trails. And a bunch of trains and buses. But times change.

 

If ODOT wants to bring another Interstate Highway through Cincinnati someday, I doubt the funding for a new NEPA study would be much of a problem. I mean, the river and flood plain will have already been bridged, the vertical construction of the grade-separated interchanges will have been completed. Most of the remaining roadway is already limited-access highway. Not a giant leap to IHS standards.

 

Then there's this ... "even if they reserve space for a full interchange now, the EIS needs to be based on the full freeway build out". So since you suggest that I-74 is so highly unlikely - virtually certain never to happen -- maybe we just don't reserve any land for more interchanges.

^I don't think any space is being reserved future i/c's with the EC. I was illustrating an example.

 

Funding the EIS is not the issue, but funding the construction of the upgrade to interstate standards would be. Controlled access is not the same as limited access. Controlled Access will have at-grade intersections, and narrower shoulders (if any) and can still have provisions for pedestrians.

 

>We won't see any work this decade.

 

Actually the I-75 rebuild will be done in 2017 or 2018, after which time TONS of money frees up in the ODOT budget.  That's the whole problem -- the road lobby is always looking for projects, whether an area needs them or not, and the funding mechanism is there to keep the machine humming.  This is the whole problem with the gasoline tax as opposed to backing bonds with tolls. 

 

    Can't really blame the road lobby: they are just after the money, no matter where it comes from.

First Eastern Corridor open house raises additional questions about plan

By Jake Mecklenborg, UrbanCincy.com

http://www.urbancincy.com/2011/04/first-eastern-corridor-open-house-raises-additional-questions-about-plan/

 

First proposed in the late 1990’s, the multi-modal Eastern Corridor plan concluded its Tier 1 planning in 2006. After four years of inaction, planning for commuter rail on the Oasis line resumed in May 2010. Tier 2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and preliminary engineering is currently underway and preferred alternatives will be determined in 2012.

 

As the plan moves forward, project leaders are holding three community open houses this week to provide an opportunity for the public to learn more about the project and offer feedback at the midpoint of this planning phase. But because there will not be any official decisions concerning track alignment, vehicle type, etc., until 2012, those who attended the April 5 open house at the Leblond Recreation Center on Riverside Drive were frustrated by the inability of planners to answer specific questions.

 

The primary concern of open house attendees was the proposed use of diesel locomotives. Area residents are familiar with the sound of the line’s periodic freight trains and the Cincinnati Dinner Train, and fear that frequent high-speed diesel commuter train service will significantly impact their neighborhoods. Most expressed that they would be more welcoming to the proposed commuter service if it took the form of electric light rail or modern streetcar technology similar to that of the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

Several concerned citizens, including Arn Bortz, Managing Partner of Towne Properties, observed that the Oasis Commuter Rail is designed to serve far eastern Hamilton County and Clermont County to the detriment of those who live in Cincinnati. Thayne Maynard, President of the Cincinnati Zoo, said that he moved to Newtown to be close to the Loveland Bike Trail, and is worried that the Oasis commuter rail might scuttle plans for the Ohio River Trail between Downtown and Lunken Airport.

 

Planners assured those in attendance that “No Build” is a possible outcome of the Tier 2 work, in which case all of these concerns can be forgotten. But the completion of Tier 2 work will not determine how capital funds are acquired or which local entity will operate the line. The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) is the most likely operator. With the vast majority of SORTA’s funding coming from a .3% Cincinnati earnings tax, it appears that a special source of revenue will be needed for the Oasis Line as it is expected to terminate near I-275 in Clermont County.

 

Further complicating the issue, UrbanCincy investigated the Eastern Corridor plan in August 2010 and discovered several significant flaws that have yet to be addressed by project planners.

Todd Portune said today at the County Commissioners meeting that Jean Schmidt told him that the house will adopt a 6 year bill on July 7 that includes authorization for the Brent Spence Bridge and the Eastern Corridor plan.

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't foresee the House even debating a 6-year tranpo bill.

There's going to be a public hearing about the project on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm at the Madisonville Recreation Center, 5320 Stewart Road, 45227.  Of course it's not mentioned on the project website, which is still horribly neglected.  I'm not sure if this particular document has been shown before, as it could be new, although it's similar to what's been shown before.  Nevertheless, it does call out the existing Red Bank Road corridor to be upgraded to "highway capacity" which is a huge red flag.  It also notes possible signalized interchanges at Madison and Erie/Brotherton.  In a way, the latter is already a signalized interchange, as it is grade separated.  Nevertheless, they still don't have any explanation for how access to all the businesses will be maintained or how highway-ish versus arterial-ish this is.  The project is so cloaked in secrecy that whatever they're proposing must really be awful. 

 

http://www.easterncorridor.org/pdf%20milestones%20archive/Tier%201%20Recommended%20Plan.pdf

Well, in a recent news report, some owners - like MedPace, were "up in arms" about the whole highway deal that they "had no idea" was going on. But they neglected to add that MedPace was a very recent move to what was a very large industrial complex undergoing transformation.

 

ODOT has a much newer map than that. It was at their last public meeting and anyone can request it. I'll probably attend the meeting - it was already in my calendar.

They don't need to make them full interchanges. This build a simple overpass over the existing roads like Madison Rd. I have seen it done in places like Fort Meyers, Fl.

 

This is one of them. http://www.aaroads.com/southeast/florida800/cr-867a_sb_at_cr-884.jpg

 

Access is still maintained by one way roads. Although some area's are quite narrow like where the OLD BMV building is located across from the Penn station.

Will the rail portion of the eastern corridor project even be possible if the anti-streetcar amendment to the charter is passed?  I would assume not.  I wonder if that would make people with the county come out against the amendment.

My understanding is it would not be able to proceed within Cincinnati city limits.

No need to worry about it.It won't be on the ballot unless they come up with 2000 more signatures by the 10th. Even after the big signing event over the weekend they still couldn't get enough.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110802/NEWS0108/108030332

Roadway expansion and higher speeds are part of the "Eastern Corridor"? Opposition to this is a no-brainer

 

Residents Plan To Oppose Red Bank Road Expansion

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Residents-Plan-To-Oppose-Red-Bank-Road-Expansion/QipIYWQbvU-92LammSk2AQ.cspx

 

The Red Bank Expressway would make up part of the Eastern Corridor project. The proposed four lane highway would produce higher speeds and some residents are concerned about how it will impact schools, businesses and the community as a whole.

2016? That would start much much sooner than i thought. I-75 will not be finished by then and all that extra traffic will be on I-71. 

 

People are so UNINFORMED  in this city. They are comparing this with the streetcar as in the city don't have any money. This is mostly a county project. Most funds will come from Federal dollars.

I love how MedPace complained about the extra traffic, noise and impact it will have on their property. Remember that MedPace just opened shop in Madisonville after moving from Norwood just very recently. If they didn't have all of those hundreds of employees that drove to their auto-centric development, they wouldn't be putting that much more strain on the existing roadway capacity.

 

Think of those subdivision owners that move out to the farmlands of northern Kentucky, and then complain about the cow poop in the pasture next to them. That's what they are.

The corridor is the perfect opportunity for a "complete streets" approach with slow traffic, bike lanes and median for potential light rail. And I think it would be a win for the neighborhood and the City if they pursued that route.

Can anyone report on last night's meeting? 

The corridor is the perfect opportunity for a "complete streets" approach with slow traffic, bike lanes and median for potential light rail. And I think it would be a win for the neighborhood and the City if they pursued that route.

 

I wish they would!

Enquirer blog entry regarding the Aug 3rd meeting

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/eyeontheeastside/2011/08/04/residents-respond-to-red-bank-road-proposal/

 

Zoom onto this picture for a closeup of one of the boards:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/eyeontheeastside/files/2011/08/EHJredbank_51.jpg

 

Could a worse site for a bridge for Hetzell Ave over Red Bank be picked? I wipes out a 3 story office bldg (ironically where i thin the project office for the Eastern Corridor was)

Yikes, look at all the looping ramps and new traffic signals around Duck Creek and Madison.  It's like some 1950s urban expressway nightmare.  They might just as well say "we want to bring the character of South Fairmount, Lower Price Hill, and South Cumminsville to the east side of town."

Yikes, look at all the looping ramps and new traffic signals around Duck Creek and Madison.  It's like some 1950s urban expressway nightmare.  They might just as well say "we want to bring the character of South Fairmount, Lower Price Hill, and South Cumminsville to the east side of town."

 

This project is heinous and should be opposed by everyone.

I was at the meeting and took video.  I'll be uploading it later tonight, hopefully. 

Wow...just...odious.

Man, we really need this since the East Side is in such terrible shape economically...

 

...

 

...

 

 

Promoting development in the underdeveloped east side is preferable to all other options except density. Unless one wishes to see vehicle miles traveled and its associated economic burden go up because growth continues up I-71.

 

Underdeveloped?  The areas between Red Bank and I-275 are the way they are mostly because of floodplain issues and rugged hillside terrain.  Think about it this way.  How would this project actually benefit Cincinnati, Fairfax, Newtown?  It'll just encourage more sprawl in Clermont County, while saddling the aforementioned cities/villages with more traffic, pollution, and road maintenance costs, at the same time depressing land values and tax revenue.  The sort of development already along Red Bank is so low-density and auto-oriented that it's a net loss even now.  It is NOT worth promoting development when that development requires so much infrastructure that it can't ever hope to pay for itself.  While it's been slow in coming forward, evidence is showing that nearly all suburban development doesn't pay for itself at anywhere near the current tax rates. 

Here is my take on this new proposal, which is different than what was originally proposed.

 

I'm not completely opposed to the new interchanges, but if they are going to construct interchanges at Madison and Duck Creek, why not continue further south with the interchanges and frontage roads? It makes little sense to have the highway, which will carry a higher AADT once it is completed to OH 32, to contain traffic lights south of the Indiana and Ohio Railroad overpass. As it is now, the remainder of the route will consist of intersections and perhaps another interchange at Newtown as part of Phases II and III, but these will become outdated if a lot of Interstate 471-275 traffic diverts to Interstate 71-OH 32.

 

I also worry about the capacity of Interstate 71 between OH 562/Norwood Lateral and Red Bank. It is already at LOS C-D during much of the day, and completely fails at rush hour due to the left merge of OH 562 and the two right lanes dropping for exits (forcing traffic into just two through lanes). In addition, there will be more cross-county traffic taking Interstate 74 to OH 562 to Red Bank - so the left merge on Interstate 71 northbound to the right exit at Red Bank will contain a lot of weaving - not the best solution if you want to keep traffic moving on Interstate 71. That mess of an interchange needs to be redesigned at any rate, but that would just be one large cluster%^@& of a project.

^  Which just goes to show how this project is going to snowball out of control, creating more problems than it solves.  I can see it also causing more traffic issues on Columbia Parkway as that will become more favored to reach Mt. Carmel and Eastgate instead of I-471/I-275. 

Yeah. That's just my projection on this, not withstanding my own opinion on the entire project which I favor as a replacement to the never-completed OH 126 freeway through Indian Hill and Milford.

 

I don't see the Columbia Parkway being too heavily impacted, at least between Red Bank and Beechmont Avenue/OH 125/OH 32. That segment of freeway is underutilized, and that interchange, which is archaic at best, is slated to be reconstructed at a future point.

 

Remember that with this comes along upgrades to existing OH 32 west of Interstate 275 on the existing four lane alignment. Some intersections will be closed, others bridged, and the Interstate 275 interchange will be rebuilt. Further east, as part of a separate project, will see more interchanges and intersection closures - greatly needed given that much of the highway is not over capacity, but burdened with too many traffic signals and intersections, which has given the highway a fairly high accident rate.

If this is to go forward, there should be some pro-urban components added to the plan to counteract its potential to induce sprawl development beyond just serving existing "needs". The way it stands, this is a completely backward-thinking proposal.

 

Of course, if I had my way, I would skip this project and divert as much of its funding as possible to bike infrastructure, mass transit, and pedestrian-oriented projects.

Columbia Parkway between the CBD and Fairfax will be hugely and negatively affected by the construction of the Red Bank (sooner or later, I-74) freeway when:

 

* I-71 clogs up around Hyde Park or UC and a lot of the traffic originating in northeastern Cincinnati diverts to Columbia Parkway via the new Red Bank freeway.

 

* The new freeway is extended from Fairfax to Eastgate and much of the downtown-destination Clermont County traffic that now uses I-471/275 diverts to Columbia Parkway.

 

Once this highway is high-speed limited access and extended to 275 @ Eastgate, I don't see how there is any way these things won't happen.

This project is wrong in so many ways. I'm glad residents are speaking up and offering alternative ideas.

 

 

I was at the meeting and took video.  I'll be uploading it later tonight, hopefully.

 

Did you upload that video yet, Jake?

Underdeveloped?  The areas between Red Bank and I-275 are the way they are mostly because of floodplain issues and rugged hillside terrain.  Think about it this way.  How would this project actually benefit Cincinnati, Fairfax, Newtown?  It'll just encourage more sprawl in Clermont County, while saddling the aforementioned cities/villages with more traffic, pollution, and road maintenance costs, at the same time depressing land values and tax revenue.  The sort of development already along Red Bank is so low-density and auto-oriented that it's a net loss even now.  It is NOT worth promoting development when that development requires so much infrastructure that it can't ever hope to pay for itself.  While it's been slow in coming forward, evidence is showing that nearly all suburban development doesn't pay for itself at anywhere near the current tax rates. 

 

I did my thesis on this project. Have you looked at a satellite photo of the metropolitan area recently? Do you really want the growth wavefront to continue rolling up the 71-75 corridor? Western Clermont county is pathetically underdeveloped given its proximity to I-275, because of the connectivity issue. Do you think that the Warren/Butler alternative is somehow better? That development is also trash.

 

Not connecting Clermont to Cincinnati is not going to magically make the region invest in density and TOD. I'm just being realistic. It's not like I wouldn't prefer that alternative.

It's just that this "growth at all cost" mentality is what's gotten us into such a bind.  If it's going to happen in Butler County or northern Kentucky, fine.  That doesn't mean we should try to help it along, or try to encourage more of it in other locations.  None of these places near I-275 are going to become urban in any meaningful way, so all the better that they remain "pathetically underdeveloped".  Besides, Newtown, Round Bottom, and the Little Miami River corridor in general is about the closest thing to a rural landscape we have left anywhere near the city.  The more that area gets developed, the harder it becomes for people who live in the city to actually get away.  There's already a lot of exurban development and "rural sprawl" east of I-275, and if it stays at that lower level of development, it's unlikely to start leapfrogging farther out.  With the future of gas prices and strength of the dollar and all that, there may simply not be the fuel or the capital for much more outward growth anyway, and in that case these major arterials and highways are going to be an even bigger liability than they already are. 

275 is a really long ring road -- one of the longest in the world. It's not surprising that much of it goes through areas that are still undeveloped. Besides the fact that it has exits, it is so long that it becomes a completely arbitrary development boundary.

It's just that this "growth at all cost" mentality is what's gotten us into such a bind.  If it's going to happen in Butler County or northern Kentucky, fine.  That doesn't mean we should try to help it along, or try to encourage more of it in other locations.  None of these places near I-275 are going to become urban in any meaningful way, so all the better that they remain "pathetically underdeveloped".  Besides, Newtown, Round Bottom, and the Little Miami River corridor in general is about the closest thing to a rural landscape we have left anywhere near the city.  The more that area gets developed, the harder it becomes for people who live in the city to actually get away.  There's already a lot of exurban development and "rural sprawl" east of I-275, and if it stays at that lower level of development, it's unlikely to start leapfrogging farther out.  With the future of gas prices and strength of the dollar and all that, there may simply not be the fuel or the capital for much more outward growth anyway, and in that case these major arterials and highways are going to be an even bigger liability than they already are. 

 

Why should there be a rural landscape near the core? That's wasteful. It goes against every core belief we have as urbanists that human settlement should make use of proximity and efficiency. There is a huge difference between thoughtful green space, recreational connectivity, watershed protection...and underutilized land. It's quasi-country. And the only real reason things east of 275 remain underdeveloped is because Indian Hill and Terrace Park prevented connections. This whole state of affairs was not a plan for open space, it was the by-product of no plan, or rich obstructionism.

 

I agree with you about the future of capital, but where is the capital for real transit infrastructure going to come from then? We might honestly be looking at a future of busways rather than rail. I can't believe I would even say that, but I don't see America pulling its shit together to execute a strong transit-oriented public policy. Not lately.

Clermont County isn't between metro areas in the way that Butler and to a lesser extent Warren Counties are.  A high speed rail line between Cincinnati and Dayton could also have high quality local service in a way that a similar project toward Clermont County couldn't.  Eastern Hamilton County is also not home to the vast swaths of flat land that Butler and Warren are.  The huge strip of light industry that extends from the Mill Creek Valley along railroads to Hamilton and along I-75 to Union Center is there because it's flat. 

I had a much busier weekend than I expected and haven't finished editing the video.  Here is a great question from Laure Quinlivan about the origins of the Red Bank Expressway.  I have actually seen the very first Red Bank Expressway study from the early 50's when it was a city-motivated project, and it was pretty boring to look at since nothing was out there at the time. 

 

 

Again, I apologize for the shaky camerawork.  This was DSLR video with no tripod, which obviously I should have brought. 

^ She let him dodge the question about when termination might be decided. His final answer only served to back up her stated suspicion that construction is inevitable, regardless of any new information.

This town needs it. It will create alot of activity and jobs for the area.

Which town needs it?

Can someone post resources about the project that shows it in its entirety including renderings?

Here are citizen comments from the meeting:

This technical memo has been posted recently to the EC web Site. I believe these were the alternatives discussed at the 8/3/11 meeting

 

http://www.easterncorridor.org/seg%20I/2011-08/2006%20Tech%20Memo-RedBank%20Road%20Improvements%20I-71%20to%20US-50-EC%20Seg-1.pdf

 

(according to the timeline presented in the document, the City has been involved since 2005)

 

---Should this discussion be spun off into a Red bank Road/Relocated SR 32 thread under "highways"?---