But I think the problem is the Kentucky funding, isn't it?

 

Oh, I'm SURE...that Ky will come looking for help with this one.

Ohio must contribute as part of the Brent Spence Bridge project. It's not "Kentucky 'looking' for help," it's just plain sense Randy. Ohio users utilize the bridge just as much as Kentucky drivers, and out-of-region drivers, since Interstate 75 is a national throughfare that is not restricted to just one state. Ohio has, in the past, funded bridge projects in their entirely over the Ohio River, or in part. For instance, the majority of the funds for the new Ironton-Russell Bridge, the Pomeroy-Mason Bridge and the U.S. Grant Bridge came from Ohio. The majority of the funds for Ashland's 13th Street Bridge, the Carl D. Perkins Bridge and the Maysville-Aberdeen Bridge came from Kentucky. And so on.

 

As with the Brent Spence Bridge project, funding will be split respective on Federal guidelines.

Ohio must contribute as part of the Brent Spence Bridge project. It's not "Kentucky 'looking' for help," it's just plain sense Randy. Ohio users utilize the bridge just as much as Kentucky drivers, and out-of-region drivers, since Interstate 75 is a national throughfare that is not restricted to just one state. Ohio has, in the past, funded bridge projects in their entirely over the Ohio River, or in part. For instance, the majority of the funds for the new Ironton-Russell Bridge, the Pomeroy-Mason Bridge and the U.S. Grant Bridge came from Ohio. The majority of the funds for Ashland's 13th Street Bridge, the Carl D. Perkins Bridge and the Maysville-Aberdeen Bridge came from Kentucky. And so on.

 

As with the Brent Spence Bridge project, funding will be split respective on Federal guidelines.

 

Kentucky owns the river up to the low water mark on the day they became a state, it is their project for the most part, if the roles were reversed Ohio would come looking for help.  I don't know where the money will come from.

Ohio must contribute as part of the Brent Spence Bridge project. It's not "Kentucky 'looking' for help," it's just plain sense Randy. Ohio users utilize the bridge just as much as Kentucky drivers, and out-of-region drivers, since Interstate 75 is a national throughfare that is not restricted to just one state.

 

Kentucky owns the river and its bridges only up until the point it is no longer advantageous for them to do so.  What color should we paint the bridges, can Cincinnati operate a USS Cincinnati museum on its banks, etc...but as soon as its time to pay the piper all of a sudden the regionalism comes out.  F that, Ohio is here for better or for worse...its about time that Kentucky gives Cincinnati a fair shake at how things play out on the river.

That's not the only criteria, and you know better than to tort that around. Ohio has paid its share, along with West Virginia and Kentucky on various inter-state spans over the Ohio River, and the criteria is much more involved than some arbitrary line drawn in the muck of the Ohio. It's vastly more complicated. But Kentucky does own its lion share of the bridges in the Cincinnati metro area -- but using your logic Randy, should we just abandoned the Carl D. Perkins Bridge in Portsmouth just to give Ohio the middle finger? Or the twin Ashland Bridges that connect to U.S. Route 52 in Ohio? Or the Interstate 275 bridges? KYTC cooperates fully with ODOT on planning, maintenance and other projects, much like ODOT cooperates fully with KYTC on planning, maintenance and other projects.

 

Let's not start _yet another_ Kentucky versus Ohio thread for the sake of creating a stupid and useless diversion.

^No...what I'm saying is yes, I don't expect KY to be able to foot this kind of bill alone...and really it is the feds whole should be carrying the load.  My point is that KY seems to be quick to include Ohio with river projects when they need something, but as soon as that is not the case it is kiss of Ohio and Cincinnati...it's our f'in river/bridges.

And I can say the same about the Ironton-Russell Bridge, which is being planned entirely by ODOT. The alignment specified is to Ohio's benefit, landing east of Ironton's downtown and giving their downtown a boost, while entirely neglecting Russell's central city -- as it will connect to US 23 in Kentucky, not to a street in Russell. There were numerous alternatives, and many on both sides clamored for downtown alignments so that traffic can continue to sift through their central business districts, but now it will entirely bypass Russell and serve Ironton.

 

So there you have it, I've rebutted your statement :P

 

The Feds will be carrying the load here, and I surmise that Kentucky will be paying approximately 75% of their 10% State share, with Ohio picking up the remainder 25%. That's how it is being played out with similar projects along the river.

The Feds will be carrying the load here, and I surmise that Kentucky will be paying approximately 75% of their 10% State share, with Ohio picking up the remainder 25%. That's how it is being played out with similar projects along the river.

 

How much of the Thru the Valley I-75 project will KY be helping pay for...just curious?  :-P

When Kentucky was planning the Roebling suspension bridge, Cincinnati fought against it.  The city finally agreed as long as the bridge didn't line up with any of the streets in Cincinnati.  I just find this interesting! 

 

I also agree with Randy on this point about Kentucky and the river.  its like the only thing Kentucky has over ohio is the ownership of the river, and they use it every chance they get.

 

 

 

 

The Feds will be carrying the load here, and I surmise that Kentucky will be paying approximately 75% of their 10% State share, with Ohio picking up the remainder 25%. That's how it is being played out with similar projects along the river.

 

How much of the Thru the Valley I-75 project will KY be helping pay for...just curious?  :-P

 

How much did Ohio pay for the rebuilding of Interstate 75's Death Hill and the subsequent rebuilding of Interstate 75's interchange with the Dixie Highway in the early to mid 1990s?

The Feds will be carrying the load here, and I surmise that Kentucky will be paying approximately 75% of their 10% State share, with Ohio picking up the remainder 25%. That's how it is being played out with similar projects along the river.

 

How much of the Thru the Valley I-75 project will KY be helping pay for...just curious?  :-P

 

How much did Ohio pay for the rebuilding of Interstate 75's Death Hill and the subsequent rebuilding of Interstate 75's interchange with the Dixie Highway in the early to mid 1990s?

 

You're missing the point...you say that Ohio should pay for it since it uses it equally, I say well how is that different from Thru the Valley.  You say that it is a shared responsibility, I say well where the hell is the shared benefits of utilizing the river.  KY is constantly cock-blocking Cincy from using its banks...and totally disregards it in the decision making process when they go about doing something with theirs.

 

Ohio shouldn't pay for KY's interstates and KY shouldn't pay for Ohio's...the two should share interests in the bridges, but that means everything...not just funding the maintenance/replacement.

Here's another way to look at the Brent Spence replacement. Say the new span carries 50,000 more vehicles, 30% of them non-local trucks, 70% local cars and trucks.

 

Now were we're talking $3 billion to move 35,000 local vehicles per day - $85,700 per local vehicle, say.

 

Does something seem a little out-of-kilter when it costs way more than the value of an average car to provide the infrastructure to move it maybe a mile in both directions each day?

 

Just asking.

Kentucky didn't pay for the Suspension Bridge, it was built by a bridge company and paid for with bonds.  The bonds were repaid with tolls which lasted until the 1960's, literally 100 years.  Actually, I'm not sure when the bonds were actually paid off and the company started making money. 

 

The first time a non-highway bridge was built with state funds was the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge in 1974.  Kentucky did purchase the first C&O Bridge around 1929 as well as the Central and Suspension Bridges.  Kentucky bought the roadway part of the L&N bridge as well, then CSX donated the railroad section around 2000. 

The Feds will be carrying the load here, and I surmise that Kentucky will be paying approximately 75% of their 10% State share, with Ohio picking up the remainder 25%. That's how it is being played out with similar projects along the river.

 

How much of the Thru the Valley I-75 project will KY be helping pay for...just curious?  :-P

 

How much did Ohio pay for the rebuilding of Interstate 75's Death Hill and the subsequent rebuilding of Interstate 75's interchange with the Dixie Highway in the early to mid 1990s?

 

You're missing the point...you say that Ohio should pay for it since it uses it equally, I say well how is that different from Thru the Valley.  You say that it is a shared responsibility, I say well where the hell is the shared benefits of utilizing the river.  KY is constantly cock-blocking Cincy from using its banks...and totally disregards it in the decision making process when they go about doing something with theirs.

 

Ohio shouldn't pay for KY's interstates and KY shouldn't pay for Ohio's...the two should share interests in the bridges, but that means everything...not just funding the maintenance/replacement.

 

I was being sarcastic with my Interstate 75 comments regarding the highway reconstruction that occurred with Federal and State funds. It was in direct reply to your comment regarding the Through the Valley project, which is entirely in Ohio and will be funded in a manner that was similar to the Death Hill reconstruction -- with Federal and State Funds. Kentucky will play no part in it, much like Ohio played no part in the Death Hill construction.

 

It's vastly different than a bridge that shares the borders with two states. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Well Randy does have some valid ponts about KY "cock blocking" Cincinnati river projects. Why does KY own both sides of the river anyway? Are all US rivers owned by only one side and not the other? You'd think it would be split in the middle.

The trucks that are passing thru our great city and not contributing anything but diesel fumes and wear and tear on our roads can go around. :-P Higher prices? oh well!

 

I was thinking about this problem after work today.  There's no way that through traffic (especially truck drivers) will choose to bypass the city, since it is much faster to use 75/71.  But it might be possible to divert some of the traffic by placing tolls a mile or two inside of the 275 loop in both directions in KY and in OH, with a well advertised free bypass on 275.  I absolutely hate toll booths on expressways, but the proceeds could be used to fund the bridge project, and if a small percentage of traffic chooses to bypass the Brent Spence, it takes at least some of the load off of it.  I'd love to make it a "trucks only" toll, but I don't know if that would be legal or not.  As someone who lives in KY, it would suck for us, as 275 is only about 5 miles south of the river down here, so the locals would end up getting hit by this a lot.  Still, this money has to come from somewhere, and this might have the added side effect of curbing further sprawl.

Atlanta banned thru trucks and there economy didn't suffer so we should too. Also you can toll at I-275 and not at the bridge itself. That can save a hell of alot of money for the approaches.

Kentucky didn't pay for the Suspension Bridge, it was built by a bridge company and paid for with bonds.  The bonds were repaid with tolls which lasted until the 1960's, literally 100 years.  Actually, I'm not sure when the bonds were actually paid off and the company started making money. 

 

The first time a non-highway bridge was built with state funds was the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge in 1974.  Kentucky did purchase the first C&O Bridge around 1929 as well as the Central and Suspension Bridges.  Kentucky bought the roadway part of the L&N bridge as well, then CSX donated the railroad section around 2000.  

 

Since I'm the only one who mentioned the suspension bridge, I must assume you were responding to me.  I never said Kentucky paid for the bridge.  I only said they were planning to build a bridge because Kentucky wanted easier access to the city.  The city of Cincinnati didn't want the bridge and didn't want it lining up with the major streets, which why today it is where it is.

^As far as I am aware, this isn't true.  The reason the bridge doesn't line up with the Cincinnati & Covington street grids is because the ferrymen successfully lobbied the Ohio state legislature to pass a law (I believe it was a rider on another bill) saying that any bridge crossing the Ohio couldn't line up with a pre-existing street.  The alignment was not a result of municipal ordinance, but state law.

Atlanta banned thru trucks and there economy didn't suffer so we should too. Also you can toll at I-275 and not at the bridge itself. That can save a hell of alot of money for the approaches.

 

Tolling Interstate 275 would only divert more through traffic to Interstates 71 and 75.

 

And tolling the Interstates would require an FHWA exemption, which would take years and most likely never pass. Other states, including Pennsylvania and South Carolina, are current pursuing this. South Carolina has been granted limited permission to toll Interstate 95, but they have not yet completed a planning study on how to approach this. FHA's reasoning for South Carolina's approval for Interstate 95 is this: It passes by no major metropolitan areas and serves mostly out-of-state traffic, and there is a free alternative nearby.

 

Tolling Interstate 71/75 would cause unneeded congestion -- it's already at level-of-service C-F at any rate, and adding toll booths would only serve to increase congestion and cause major backups at the booths. Yes, you can use systems like EZ-PASS, but there will be a large percentage of those not using EZ-PASS (notably, those not from the area, since the mid-west has few toll roads that use the EZ-PASS system).

Why does KY own both sides of the river anyway? Are all US rivers owned by only one side and not the other? You'd think it would be split in the middle.

 

I remember hearing something about the line be re-drawn around the time of the Civil War...thus allowing slave owners to legally chase/hunt down their slaves as they were crossing the river.

Tolling Interstate 71/75 would cause unneeded congestion -- it's already at level-of-service C-F at any rate, and adding toll booths would only serve to increase congestion and cause major backups at the booths. Yes, you can use systems like EZ-PASS, but there will be a large percentage of those not using EZ-PASS (notably, those not from the area, since the mid-west has few toll roads that use the EZ-PASS system).

 

I don't know...I've utilized several different forms of tolling systems, and if design properly with the right kinds of approaches/departures, and located properly I think they can work quite well.

 

I-75 has a poor level of service, but I'm not sure that the same level of service exists out near the beltways...it certainly does as it cuts through the city, but out near I-275 the lanes/shoulders get wider, the ramps are greatly improved, and there are more lanes than need be (a traffic engineer's wet dream).  So I guess what I'm saying is that while tolls sometimes pose an issue, I'm not entirely sold that it wouldn't/couldn't work here.

More lanes than needs be? Interstate 275's LOS on the eastern front ranges from C-F, C indicating that free range of movement is more restricted and F indicating that there is very little to no free range of movement. The VPD suggests that three-lanes are currently adequate for the traffic situation during all but the peak travel times, and congestion frequently occurs at the interchanges (due to traffic entering/exiting).

 

My only issue with tolling Interstate 275, is that the west side carries substantially less traffic after you pass by the airport. It's still four-lanes and there are no long-term plans to widen the highway to three-lanes -- although it is designed for it up until you cross the Ohio River. VPD is only around ~30,000 on the west side, and tolling it would only give trucks less incentive to use that route -- much like if you tolled the east side. Most would rather deal with the congestion and take the direct route through the city, than pay $20ish for a trip on the bypass.

 

EZ-PASS works well in most areas -- but only if there are high-speed toll lanes. Since most of the EZ-PASS users will be locals, you will need to achieve a critical mass of local adopters to ease congestion at the manual toll booths. I doubt there will be many from out-of-state, since the program does cost money, because there are little to no toll roads in the area that use the EZ-PASS system. Indiana uses EZ-PASS, but it's limited to just one toll road on the very northern tip of the state. Illinois uses a different system entirely IIRC, while West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, etc. have EZ-PASS (mostly northeastern states for now). Kentucky never adopted the EZ-PASS system for their parkways, since their tolls were only ... 10-15-25 cents at most booths.

^I don't think anyone has suggessted tolling I-275...the idea is to toll I-75 at I-275.

I don't think anyone has suggessted tolling I-275

I almost fainted when I saw that....

 

If a thru truck wants to use 71/75 let them pay for it.  Just make the toll high enough that it would be much cheaper to go around our city.

I don't think anyone has suggessted tolling I-275

 

I almost fainted when I saw that....

 

I don't understand  :?

Oh ok, my apologies on that then.

Since I'm the only one who mentioned the suspension bridge, I must assume you were responding to me.  I never said Kentucky paid for the bridge.  I only said they were planning to build a bridge because Kentucky wanted easier access to the city.  The city of Cincinnati didn't want the bridge and didn't want it lining up with the major streets, which why today it is where it is.

^As far as I am aware, this isn't true.  The reason the bridge doesn't line up with the Cincinnati & Covington street grids is because the ferrymen successfully lobbied the Ohio state legislature to pass a law (I believe it was a rider on another bill) saying that any bridge crossing the Ohio couldn't line up with a pre-existing street.  The alignment was not a result of municipal ordinance, but state law.

 

 

DanB's version of the story is what I'm familiar with.  Whether or not that's true is anyone's guess, but I had always heard that Cincinnati was reluctant to link up with Covington.  Of course, it seems just as likely that the current orientation was chosen based factors like bedrock quality or some limitation of the technology of the day, that just doesn't occur to us now.  I'd love to know if there's a documented explanation for this.

Yeah i meant to say toll I-75 at I-275. Lots of land to add extra lanes for approaches at the northern end and the southern end. Oh I-71 trucks should be tolled too. Hmm this could also encourage people to move inside the loop. ;)

There are so many positives to have Thru trucks stay on the loop. Less air pollution in the downtown basin, quieter highways, less accidents in FWW tunnels caused by speeding and wreckless trucks etc. shorter commute times.  I want an HOV lane on 75 when they do away with left hand exits.

Yeah i meant to say toll I-75 at I-275. Lots of land to add extra lanes for approaches at the northern end and the southern end. Oh I-71 trucks should be tolled too. Hmm this could also encourage people to move inside the loop. ;)

 

Or it could encourage businesses to move outside the loop - devil's advocate.

^ Thanks for reposting that, and thanks to Grasscat for posting it the first time.

 

 

"The Kentucky legislature approved a charter for the project in 1846, but steamboat operators convinced the Ohio legislature to reject the idea. The charter that Ohio rejected included a number of conditions."

 

 

So it sounds like the steamboat operators are the main cause of the alignment.  But I can see how residents of Covington could interpret this as being a choice made by the city of Cincinnati itself, based on this second quote:

 

 

"A later charter amendment prohibited a bridge at the foot of any of Cincinnati's main streets."

 

 

Wow the post has been resurrected.  lol

Pause for a second and picture all those cows falling into the Licking River. 

Order of preference

1. Rails not trucks

2. Trucks on flyway with limited exits through the valley (instead of an HOV) more workable and used by trucks than sending them around 275, especially since I think Rando is right that it will only exacerbate the decentralization of the region.

3. Tolls on the main thruway.

My order of preference:

1. Increase capacity along the highway by implementing a systemwide HOV-3 network for all lanes from 6 AM to 8 AM and from 4 PM to 6 PM, which would systematically ban all tractor-trailers. This is done along Interstate 66 in Arlington, Virginia (one of the reasons why the highway was constructed in the first place, and with such limited capacity).

2. Open-road tolling on rural stretches of interstate highway.

3. Construct additional intermodal centers along main railroad corridors, and invest heavily into rail freight transport. Remove any clearance issues to allow for double-stacked containers.

1. Increase capacity along the highway by implementing a systemwide HOV-3 network for all lanes from 6 AM to 8 AM and from 4 PM to 6 PM, which would systematically ban all tractor-trailers.

 

So all the lanes would be carpool lanes 4 hours a day?  I don't know, I'd still like to be able to drive out of the city to my office in the burbs every day.  I'm totally with you on the rail, though.

 

    The boundary between Ohio and Kentucky derives from the colony of Virginia's cession to the United States of all land northwest of the right bank of Ohio in 1784.

 

1. Increase capacity along the highway by implementing a systemwide HOV-3 network for all lanes from 6 AM to 8 AM and from 4 PM to 6 PM, which would systematically ban all tractor-trailers.

 

So all the lanes would be carpool lanes 4 hours a day?  I don't know, I'd still like to be able to drive out of the city to my office in the burbs every day.  I'm totally with you on the rail, though.

 

Well, the Interstate 66 example was set as a compromise because the highway narrows to four-lanes as you enter into the heart of Alexandria. A compromise because it goes through a very dense urbanized area, and has a metro line in the median. Interstate 71/75 is much wider in most areas but it suffers from never-ending congestion, and a restriction wouldn't be all that bad -- given that you have Interstate 471 nearby.

N.Ky. caught in middle on bridge tolls

BY PATRICK CROWLEY | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

January 26, 2008

 

COVINGTON – Legislation that could lead to a toll being charged on a rebuilt Interstate 75/71 Brent Spence Bridge is presenting Northern Kentucky lawmakers with one of their most difficult votes in years.

 

On one side are federal officials, members of Kentucky’s federal delegation, leaders of both parties and both chambers in the General Assembly and area business leaders pushing tolls as a salvation for a $3 billion project the federal government doesn’t want to pay for.

 

    "The Brent Spence is outdated, overcrowded and dangerous to travel."

 

    The Brent Spence is overcrowded and dangerous to travel. I'll give you that. But how is it outdated?

 

    "Legislation that could lead to a toll being charged on a rebuilt Interstate 75/71 Brent Spence Bridge..."

 

    Place a toll on the current bridge!

Outdated in the sense that it has no shoulders (eliminated for a fourth travel lane) and poor sight lines.

The sight lines problem is almost entirely a symptom of the C&O approach viaduct, which both decks of the Brent Spence rise to cross.  So the highest point of the crossing is at that point, not on the bridge itself. 

 

Here traffic coasts downhill toward the bridge:

 

I tend to think since the southbound merge of I-75 and FWW is traveling slightly uphill it's a big cause of the daily slowdown that backs all the way to Ezzard Charles and beyond.  It's amazing how easily orderly vehicular traffic is confused by subtle characteristics of the roadway, something rail transit is more or less immune to. 

 

Here is where lower deck traffic sight lines are confused by the rise north of the bridge:

 

 

Here is a photo of the bridge in its original lane configuration, with just two through lanes:

Wow that last picture is pretty amazing. 2 interstates on those narrow lanes. I  really can't imagine how bad the congestion would be if the lanes were never expanded.

You may find the following useful --

 

Interstate 75 in Kentucky, with a specific focus on northern Kentucky. Upon completion in 1961, there was only four-lanes (with a climber southbound) at "Death Hill", and only a curbed median with shrubs as a divider. A guardrail was later installed until the elongated reconstruction took place in the 1990s, when more lanes were added to Interstate 75 and a jersey barrier was installed. The approaches to the Brent Spence were widened in 1986 to accommodate three through-lanes, which widened to four at the bridge itself when the auxillery lane came in.

 

And the Brent Spence Bridge at B&T.

Jake,

 

I notice in the dated two-lane picture there are extended/exposed piers under the SB lanes.  Looks like they planned on widening it all along. ???

 

BTW, I love this picture from the link...so much going on in this one!  It reminds me of something you would see driving into Knoxville.

 

 

And this...seicer, did you take these?  What year were these?

 

No, they came from a public library. I'm not that old ;)

And this...seicer, did you take these?  What year were these?

 

The earliest the first pic could be is 77. I see one of my old Datsun B-210's  Also see an A-35 series Celica.

 

2nd pic is at least 1982

I think Mike-Sells still uses the truck in the first pic.

 

^ There is the original median. Safe!