2 hours ago, Rabbit Hash said:

Have we discussed what becomes of the Lytle Tunnel if 71 is rerouted?

 

You know the answer to that already.

 

^Close, it would be Ubahn part 2 http://www.ubahnfest.com/thetunnel

The Brent Spence Bridge has been reported as costing $2.5 or $2.6 billion since 2009. The most recent official cost estimate I could find was from 2013.

 

Anyone else think they're going to say "hey we can do this without tolls at $2.6 billion with additional funding from the Biden plan, then get a few years into construction, realize there's going to be $1 billion in overruns and then say "they only way to finish this project is with tolls"?

 

Seems plausible.  

^Yes absolutely, very plausible

 

Are there any realistic chances that this project gets right-sized before it breaks ground? If Covington is the only government with elected officials pushing back on the plan, it seems all but inevitable we'll be stuck with a massive, overbuilt pair of bridges.

Brent Spence gets the header photo from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/infrastructure-projects-joe-biden.html

 

The article calls the bridge "creaky"... but also includes a quote from Covington's mayor about how the new bridge would be an "existential threat". 

 

Here's my (naive, unrealistic) hope: with the bridge getting re-painted over the coming months, we can stop raising the false alarm that it is somehow structurally compromised, since it's not! 

Only 1/4 of the "infrastructure" bill is going to transit, and of that only 6% is going to roads and bridges. I think it's optimistic to think that the entire bridge project will be covered by it, but when the feds print that much money who knows? That 6% is still over $100 billion.

 

Accounting for cost escalations since the last estimate was done, combined with what very well may be soaring inflation (particularly in construction) over the next decade - I wouldn't be surprised if the overall cost ends up near $4 billion.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/10/politics/infrastructure-politics-ohio-bridge/index.html

ODOT director: Brent Spence project will need tolls regardless of Biden infrastructure plan

 

Even if the Brent Spence Bridge lands on the top 10 most important national infrastructure projects, drivers traveling over the bridge likely will have to pay tolls, Ohio’s transportation director told the Business Courier.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/04/22/odot-head-brent-spence-needs-tolls-regardless-of.html

 

CWB will be swamped the day after it happens. This is so dumb/ridiculous. Close an entrance ramp at each end, add a Texas turnaround, restripe some lanes, and we are done. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

A national embarrassment.

They're painting it gray too, I was really hoping they'd do something crazy that would pop.  I'd rather have the rust/gritty look if they were just going to paint it gray.

19 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

They're painting it gray too, I was really hoping they'd do something crazy that would pop.  I'd rather have the rust/gritty look if they were just going to paint it gray.

Ugh. Gray, really?? What a missed opportunity. 

it looks like their spraying for bugs

Gray? Really? dont we already have enough gray days around here. I say a nice orange color, or a verdant green would be nice.  We have blue and yellow already.

2 hours ago, TheCOV said:

Gray? Really? dont we already have enough gray days around here. I say a nice orange color, or a verdant green would be nice.  We have blue and yellow already.

 

Or, I dunno, red?

President Joe Biden will visit Cincinnati on July 21 for a CNN town hall event, according to the White House.

 

Could we expect some good news on or before July 21st when it comes to the bridge and/or Amtrak? Why else would Joe choose to do the event in Cincy? 

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

Why else would Joe choose to do the event in Cincy? 

I doubt the bipartisan bill is done by the 21st.  He'll just use the Stay-Puft Michelin Man Bridge as an example of a crumbling piece of infrastructure in desperate need of repair, and emphasize the need for Mitch and others to get this done.  Amtrak might come up, but I kind of doubt it. It's basically an unknown here among your average citizens.

Driving in to work this morning the middle portion had the wrap pulled back already and it looks... well it's still an ugly bridge but now it's grey! 

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

President Joe Biden will visit Cincinnati on July 21 for a CNN town hall event, according to the White House.

 

Could we expect some good news on or before July 21st when it comes to the bridge and/or Amtrak? Why else would Joe choose to do the event in Cincy? 

 

Unfortunately the "town hall" is being put on by CNN and is an invitation-only event - so don't expect anyone to ask about anything that's actually important or anything that will result in new ideas. It will be a scripted production piece written and directed by the White House.

On 7/13/2021 at 1:08 PM, ucgrady said:

President Joe Biden will visit Cincinnati on July 21 for a CNN town hall event, according to the White House.

 

Could we expect some good news on or before July 21st when it comes to the bridge and/or Amtrak? Why else would Joe choose to do the event in Cincy? 

Rob Portman and Rand Paul says its in the new bill if it passes.

If this thing comes to reality, it will be a tragedy. Is that too strong?

If this thing gets built without tolls, as is now being discussed, it's going to be a sprawl engine for the next 50 years. Investment will keep pouring into remote areas on the periphery of the Greater Cincinnati area, turning more farmland into strip malls and subdivisions. Building this new bridge with no public transportation component, while ignoring the existence of climate change and the damaging consequences of this project, is the tragedy.

The new lane restrictions are just awful for NB traffic.

2 hours ago, Rabbit Hash said:

The new lane restrictions are just awful for NB traffic.

Yes said it was a 10 min delay to cross the bridge Monday.  It took 40 mins.

‘Game changer’: Infrastructure bill likely will cover half of Brent Spence Bridge cost

 

The $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure legislature approved by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday has billions of dollars that could be used for the Brent Spence Bridge corridor project, with Sen. Sherrod Brown’s office estimating that 50% or more of its costs will be covered.

 

The bridge itself is not named in the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, nor is it clear what the maximum amount it could receive will be, a key question because of years of conflict over how to pay for any required local match.

 

For the region to get the money, the legislation must clear the U.S. House and be signed by President Joe Biden, and Ohio and Kentucky will have to successfully apply for the money.

 

But Brown’s office said one of the programs in the legislation will “provide a grant agreement to fund half of the Brent Spence replacement, with new formula funding to Ohio and Kentucky providing additional support for the project.”

 

“Brown has vowed to ensure the bridge is a top priority in this new program,” his office said.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/08/11/game-changer-infrastructure-bill-could-pay-for-hal.html

 

The article breaks down the price as: 

$707.6 million for the new bridge and modifications to the existing one

$1 billion Reconfiguring and expanding the approach on the Ohio side of the river

$630.5 million Reconfiguring and expanding the approach on the Kentucky side of the river

$272.9 million Engineering, design, oversight, inspection and other soft costs

$13.6 million tolling system

 

If over $1.6 billion are for reconfiguring ramps/lanes on either side, I still feel like we should be working to separate I71 and I75 via the route of I471/275 to solve the overall issue of two major highways being forced together in the urban core. 

 

Also if we are spending this much, can we please just raise the approach from the North 50' up to avoid demolishing part of Longworth Hall? That's such an annoying waste. 

I still think this configuration (using the existing bridge for I-71, building a new bridge farther west for I-75) would make so much more sense, probably cost about the same, and move the spaghetti junction away from Cincinnati's Central Business District.

 

Meanwhile, repainting is just about done on the existing bridge:

 

 

On 9/28/2021 at 10:22 AM, taestell said:

I still think this configuration (using the existing bridge for I-71, building a new bridge farther west for I-75) would make so much more sense, probably cost about the same, and move the spaghetti junction away from Cincinnati's Central Business District.

 

That would be such a massive improvement on the Cincinnati side, though would require a lot of demolishing and acquiring properties on both sides of the river. Wherever they put the new span it should either be placed high enough, or far west enough to leave Longworth hall alone. 

On 10/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, ucgrady said:

That would be such a massive improvement on the Cincinnati side, though would require a lot of demolishing and acquiring properties on both sides of the river. Wherever they put the new span it should either be placed high enough, or far west enough to leave Longworth hall alone. 

Sorry. I may have brought this up before but what about the I-175 concept that I think Jake may heal outlined before? Splitting from the mainline north of Buttermilk. Descend the same valley as the CSX to Ludlow and cross with he Cincinnati Southern Bridge, reconnecting with 75 mainline at Ezzard Charles. I can't seem to find this online but I think it is a great option.

18 hours ago, Rabbit Hash said:

Sorry. I may have brought this up before but what about the I-175 concept that I think Jake may heal outlined before? Splitting from the mainline north of Buttermilk. Descend the same valley as the CSX to Ludlow and cross with he Cincinnati Southern Bridge, reconnecting with 75 mainline at Ezzard Charles. I can't seem to find this online but I think it is a great option.

It's probably too late for that now that Ludlow approved that development on the hill. Cutting a new path through Queensgate is the right answer but it's probably prohibitively expensive. There are multiple corporations in that area and each of them will make sure they get top dollar for relocation.

I'd be very curious though if that acquisition cost would be offset by it being a simpler project though. It would seem to eliminate a massive amount of the interchange work that was to happen on the Cincy side of the river, and could also be offset by creating developable land directly in the CBD which could be of a high value if sold off to private developers.

 

Personally I think given how long it has been since the current proposal was selected, and how much has been learned about the reality of the traffic "projections" that were all doom and gloom, it's time to revisit. A replacement bridge that's directly adjacent, then demolishing the Brent Spence is probably honestly the best, most affordable option. Would require some interchange work to shift over when the bridge is done, but that's pretty par for the course and happens all the time with replacement bridges.

 

The idea that this crossing needs this many lanes and to handle this much traffic is laughable. Less people were driving over the bridge (pre pandemic) than when the study was done showing an enormous increase over the upcoming decade. Well, that never manifested, so why are we still working with the same solution to a problem that never came to be?

5 hours ago, jmicha said:

I'd be very curious though if that acquisition cost would be offset by it being a simpler project though. It would seem to eliminate a massive amount of the interchange work that was to happen on the Cincy side of the river, and could also be offset by creating developable land directly in the CBD which could be of a high value if sold off to private developers.

 

Personally I think given how long it has been since the current proposal was selected, and how much has been learned about the reality of the traffic "projections" that were all doom and gloom, it's time to revisit. A replacement bridge that's directly adjacent, then demolishing the Brent Spence is probably honestly the best, most affordable option. Would require some interchange work to shift over when the bridge is done, but that's pretty par for the course and happens all the time with replacement bridges.

 

The idea that this crossing needs this many lanes and to handle this much traffic is laughable. Less people were driving over the bridge (pre pandemic) than when the study was done showing an enormous increase over the upcoming decade. Well, that never manifested, so why are we still working with the same solution to a problem that never came to be?

 

And Covington doesn't even want the bridge.

Covington doesn't want a 12 lane, double decker bridge that destroys so much of Covington's Lewisburg neighborhood, Goebel park and then immediately reverts back to the 4 lane 8% grade of the cut in the hill, therefore not really solving the traffic issues, and in fact creating MORE of a bottleneck than the current situation. It also provides zero space for transit, and removes access to 4th and 5th streets for downtown Covington. I know Mayor Meyer has repeated my idea of splitting I75 on the BSB and I71 on the Big Mac, reworking the ramps on either side of the river so they come together in Erlanger/Florence where there is A) more space and B) the 275 / 75 / 71 Interchange needs to be reworked anyway and has already been earmarked and studied for improvement and I will continue to bug the people on my side of the river at KYTC 6 and the city who actually engage in the conversation. 

On 10/6/2021 at 9:57 AM, jmicha said:

I'd be very curious though if that acquisition cost would be offset by it being a simpler project though. It would seem to eliminate a massive amount of the interchange work that was to happen on the Cincy side of the river, and could also be offset by creating developable land directly in the CBD which could be of a high value if sold off to private developers.

Uneducated guess here: total savings would be dependent on number of bridges, needed to make it work. 

 

Unfortunately, AFAIK project costs are always based on up-front construction costs, and don't take into effect long-term maintenance costs. I'm sure this plan would save a lot of money on maintenance in the long run, in addition to more taxable land, as previously discussed.

2 hours ago, Dev said:

Unfortunately, AFAIK project costs are always based on up-front construction costs, and don't take into effect long-term maintenance costs. I'm sure this plan would save a lot of money on maintenance in the long run, in addition to more taxable land, as previously discussed.

 

It should be criminal to not consider long-term maintenance costs as part of any governnment-funded construction -- roads, schools, etc.  Because we're going to have to pay for that too!

2 hours ago, Dev said:

Uneducated guess here: total savings would be dependent on number of bridges, needed to make it work. 

 

Unfortunately, AFAIK project costs are always based on up-front construction costs, and don't take into effect long-term maintenance costs. I'm sure this plan would save a lot of money on maintenance in the long run, in addition to more taxable land, as previously discussed.

My general thinking was that the number of bridges over the river would be the same and per the estimate that was provided, that's "only" around $700 million of the $2.7 billion project. Around half that remaining $2 billion was interchange work in Cincy.

 

No idea what the acquisition costs would be, but let's say it plus the rerouting of 75 ends up costing the same, I'd still think it would be worth it simply because the current plan is a hot mess that makes little sense.

 

Or just scrap the whole project. Send trucks around 275, send 71 over the Big Mac, refurbish the existing bridge with one less lane in each direction to get some semblance of safety space back, and revisit in another 50 years.

14 minutes ago, jmicha said:

My general thinking was that the number of bridges over the river would be the same and per the estimate that was provided, that's "only" around $700 million of the $2.7 billion project. Around half that remaining $2 billion was interchange work in Cincy.

 

Or just scrap the whole project. Send trucks around 275, send 71 over the Big Mac, refurbish the existing bridge with one less lane in each direction to get some semblance of safety space back, and revisit in another 50 years.

I was referring to the number of bridges for all of the ramps, especially on the Ohio side. For example, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th are mostly just bridges over the miscellaneous 75 ramps. Then there is all the FWW ramps going above 3rd and Central. If they split 71 and 75, do they need less overpasses, or more?

 

15 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Or just scrap the whole project. Send trucks around 275, send 71 over the Big Mac, refurbish the existing bridge with one less lane in each direction to get some semblance of safety space back, and revisit in another 50 years.

This is certainly the best answer for now.

19 hours ago, jmicha said:

Or just scrap the whole project. Send trucks around 275, send 71 over the Big Mac, refurbish the existing bridge with one less lane in each direction to get some semblance of safety space back, and revisit in another 50 years.

If you add in a "small" bridge between US50 and KY20 to get West Siders to the airport that's the perfect plan. 

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

If you add in a "small" bridge between US50 and KY20 to get West Siders to the airport that's the perfect plan. 

I think a bridge in that general area from the KY hilltop to the OH hilltop hitting around Anderson Ferry Road. Then an arterial road from there all the way to Glenway.  This would open up growth for the westside by connecting the westside to all of the job growth around the airport in addition to removing that traffic from downtown bridges. Amazon delivery trucks could really benefit from this as well.

On 10/8/2021 at 11:04 AM, TheCOV said:

I think a bridge in that general area from the KY hilltop to the OH hilltop hitting around Anderson Ferry Road. Then an arterial road from there all the way to Glenway.  This would open up growth for the westside by connecting the westside to all of the job growth around the airport in addition to removing that traffic from downtown bridges. Amazon delivery trucks could really benefit from this as well.

 

Anderson Ferry hates you.

9 hours ago, Rabbit Hash said:

 

Anderson Ferry hates you.

I love the ferry. But I’d recommend the state buy them out and set them up so they don’t care that they’d likely be put out of biz. 

On 10/6/2021 at 9:57 AM, jmicha said:

Personally I think given how long it has been since the current proposal was selected, and how much has been learned about the reality of the traffic "projections" that were all doom and gloom, it's time to revisit.

 

OKI told us that if we didn't build the new bridge, all of the region's highways would be total gridlock by...2017.

 

On 10/22/2021 at 10:55 AM, taestell said:

 

OKI told us that if we didn't build the new bridge, all of the region's highways would be total gridlock by...2017.

 

That isn't even what the map looks like with a 2-lane Brent Spence on a Friday afternoon, are traffic engineers snake oil salesmen or just working with bad information? 

58 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

That isn't even what the map looks like with a 2-lane Brent Spence on a Friday afternoon, are traffic engineers snake oil salesmen or just working with bad information? 

If you look at traffic projections for the region, the "future growth" line always continued upward and constantly had to be revised downward. The reality is they've been claiming there will be extreme traffic growth in the future despite that never having come true for somewhere around 2 decades now.

 

I honestly think they create those projections to suit whatever projects they're trying to push. They wanted a new bridge for a variety of reasons/pressure from outside sources, so they created traffic projections to support the "dire" need for it.

 

I really wish this project would be revisited/redesigned in a meaningful way. Traffic patterns were already not any worse than they were anytime in the last couple decades, and the reality is that for the foreseeable future, the rush hour traffic which was the actual issue is looking like it'll not return to pre-pandemic levels anyway. There are so many easy changes that can be made in order to fix most of their list of issues without any new construction. It's a shame they've essentially lied their way into a corner by misleading the public for so long. 

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

are traffic engineers snake oil salesmen

Yes

35 minutes ago, jmicha said:

I really wish this project would be revisited/redesigned in a meaningful way.

 

I don't know a whole lot of details, but there is a grassroots group that is trying to get OKI/ODOT/KTC to reconsider the whole project and move forward with a significantly scaled-down design. Unless federal infrastructure funding falls from the sky tomorrow, I think there is still time to rethink the project.

 

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

are traffic engineers snake oil salesmen or just working with bad information? 

 

I would say that the problem is that regional planning organizations like OKI want to believe that their region will always continue to grow at the same rate, and therefore we need to make infrastructure decisions based on the same job growth rates, population growth rates, and traffic patterns that exist now. Whenever any event happens that reduces growth, like the financial crisis or the pandemic, or changes traffic patterns, like increased working from home, they view it as a temporary blip and believe that we'll get back to the status quo in a year or two. I'm not sure it's traffic engineers who are making these wild predictions about how much gridlock we'll have 10 or 20 years in the future, I would guess that the unelected politicians at OKI are meddling with those figures to some degree.

7 minutes ago, taestell said:

unelected politicians

 

Unelected politicians? 

We don't get to vote for who's on OKI's board.