Toll baby, toll.  Ironically, would diverting people in the know to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge in order to avoid the toll not direct traffic directly through Covington's world-class fast food district? 

 

Also, local politicians, let's get off our high horse with regards to the importance of this bridge.  There are dozens of interstate highway bridges around the country that carry more traffic than this, and those often do not have three parallel interstate bridges within close proximity.  For example the San Francisco Bay Bridge and George Washington Bridge each carry double the traffic volume of the Brent Spence.   

I do wonder if there might be a better way, that tolls through traffic and those with extra money without making everyone pay. Sadly, the Clay Wade would seem too small and we really don't want more folks on the Roebling Bridge. The Taylor Southgate has plenty of extra capacity but it doesn't connect well to points south.

My guess is that tolling would drive people to use the Big Mac bridge and 471 more, unless they toll both.

It may be worth noting that when KYTC studied the tolling issue to pay for the two new Ohio bridges serving I-65 and I-265 in Lousiville  they found that they the most feasible scenario would be to toll all Ohio River bridges in the region.  And even if they did so they would the tolls would only fund about 1/3 the costs of the project.

 

I would think the same would be true here.  You would likely have to toll all the bridges downtown (diverting traffic to I-275) to make it plausible and even if  you did implement tolls it would not pay for even half of the project.  The money has to come from somewhere both likely with tolling and increased fuel or VMT taxes.  Just like all transportation the interstates are not free. 

I don't understand the Queensgate issue... if you took a poll of 2.2 million greater cincinnatians , less than 5% would know where queensgate is...

^ I disagree.  Many know the location of Queensgate and avoid it.  I believe it is an area is grossly underdeveloped in its current state and has a reputation of high crime.  That being said, there are some architectural jewels (Union Terminal, the FOX19 news center, Longfellow Hall and the original Main Postal Center ) in Queengate that could shine if the right development occured.  Outside of that, you have a bunch of old warehouse buildings, a water treatment center, a large hotel that needs to be imploded, and some scattered mid rise office buildings that offer no architectural significance.  I can't imagine the occupancy rate is that high on some of the older properties.  I see many that appear abandoned.  Much of the area serves the rail yard.  I often wonder how the area might develop if the railyard was moved to the outskirts of the Metro area. 

 

The realignment of I-75 and the new Brent Spence Bridge will have a bearing on what the future holds for Queensgate.

You are mixing up Queensgate and the West End. No one lives in Queensgate (it is actually the old Kenyon-Barr neighborhood and the worst of the worst riverside area). It is mostly light industrial and some office buildings.

I'm not sure why people think that tolling the Brent Spence would mean all of the bridges would have to be tolled.  And I'm not sure why "not even half" of a capital expense means a toll has no value.  Turnpike authorities and other similar government agencies have used tolls to pay off bond issues and then fund maintenance of bridges and tunnels. 

 

What nobody cares to admit at this advanced point is that eliminating two primary sources of congestion -- the 6th St. Expressway interchange and the 5th St. ramps in Covington would eliminate virtually all of the weaving issues seen on the bridge, and be a bunch cheaper than building a new bridge. 

You are mixing up Queensgate and the West End. No one lives in Queensgate (it is actually the old Kenyon-Barr neighborhood and the worst of the worst riverside area). It is mostly light industrial and some office buildings.

 

Is this in response to my post?  Because I don't think I am mixing them up since I live in the West End (City West).

Queensgate is on the West side of I-75. The West End is on the East side of I-75.

I'm not sure why people think that tolling the Brent Spence would mean all of the bridges would have to be tolled. And I'm not sure why "not even half" of a capital expense means a toll has no value. Turnpike authorities and other similar government agencies have used tolls to pay off bond issues and then fund maintenance of bridges and tunnels.

 

What nobody cares to admit at this advanced point is that eliminating two primary sources of congestion -- the 6th St. Expressway interchange and the 5th St. ramps in Covington would eliminate virtually all of the weaving issues seen on the bridge, and be a bunch cheaper than building a new bridge.  

 

Also, no one cares to admit that adding a single light rail line from NKY into downtown would eliminate the need for a new bridge.

I agree with Mecklenborg that tolling is not a bad thing.  In fact I think all interstates should be tolled so that users pay at least some of the costs of maintaining the system which we cannot afford to do moving forward with the current tax revenues we have.

 

That being said this is such an expensive project I think the only way it will get fully funded is to spread the funding across many sources, federal, state, local and user fees (tolls).  I do think that you would have to toll I-471 to prevent diversion of intersate travel and local commuters to a lesser degree.  The other downtown bridges may not be necessary.

 

Another missperception I think many have is that replacing the Brent Spence is the heart of the project.  A new Ohio River bridge while important would likely be less than 10% of the project cost with the vast majority of the cost and impacts associated with the I-75 mainline widening and interchanges between FWW and Harrison Ave including a new interchange at the Western Hills Viaduct.  Its likely that the existing bridge will be retained in the alternatives under study at this time in combination with a new parallel structure just to the west.

Still confused... there's nothing historic left in the queensgate area that they would reroute the bridge in... just some  old warehouses and some 20 year old fast food restaurants... I don't get it...

 

they could leave the Brent for Downtown traffic and 71 and the new "Toll" bridge as a downtown bypass

 

You are mixing up Queensgate and the West End. No one lives in Queensgate (it is actually the old Kenyon-Barr neighborhood and the worst of the worst riverside area). It is mostly light industrial and some office buildings.

 

Is this in response to my post?   Because I don't think I am mixing them up since I live in the West End (City West).

The city sees Queensgate as premier land for tax purposes - that was why it redeveloped 45 years and why they don't want to sacrifice to a silly expressway. While the lifespan of the first gen of development is winding down, it has the sort of mega-blocks that would allow for new industrial or large office buildings. If we were to eliminate the current 75 path and send it all through Queensgate and give the city the land for development, there might be some support but that would make this that much more expensive.

the realignment doesn't come near any of those places

 

^ I disagree.   Many know the location of Queensgate and avoid it.  I believe it is an area is grossly underdeveloped in its current state and has a reputation of high crime.  That being said, there are some architectural jewels (Union Terminal, the FOX19 news center, Longfellow Hall and the original Main Postal Center ) in Queengate that could shine if the right development occured.  Outside of that, you have a bunch of old warehouse buildings, a water treatment center, a large hotel that needs to be imploded, and some scattered mid rise office buildings that offer no architectural significance.  I can't imagine the occupancy rate is that high on some of the older properties.  I see many that appear abandoned.  Much of the area serves the rail yard.  I often wonder how the area might develop if the railyard was moved to the outskirts of the Metro area. 

 

The realignment of I-75 and the new Brent Spence Bridge will have a bearing on what the future holds for Queensgate.

^ I guess near is very subjective.  No where did I state the historical gems were in the path, rather I was trying to show you that Queensgate was more than just a place to bulldoze for a new highway.  This was in response to your orignal statment:

 

I don't understand the Queensgate issue... if you took a poll of 2.2 million greater cincinnatians , less than 5% would know where queensgate is...

 

My point still stands: The Brent Spence Bridge realignment can have a huge impact on this potentially rich development area depending on the path taken and people do "know where Queensgate is" . 

If the bridge and highway went over queensgate and reconnected by the terminal, couldn't they redevelop the land left by the "old" interstate 75 "closer to downtown... and like lockland, wouldn't this "bridge not disrupt much, simply pass over some dated warehouses and fast food restaurants

 

^ I guess near is very subjective. No where did I state the historical gems were in the path, rather I was trying to show you that Queensgate was more than just a place to bulldoze for a new highway. This was in response to your orignal statment:

 

I don't understand the Queensgate issue... if you took a poll of 2.2 million greater cincinnatians , less than 5% would know where queensgate is...

 

My point still stands: The Brent Spence Bridge realignment can have a huge impact on this potentially rich development area depending on the path taken and people do "know where Queensgate is" . End of discussion.

If the bridge and highway went over queensgate and reconnected by the terminal, couldn't they redevelop the land left by the "old" interstate 75 "closer to downtown... and like lockland, wouldn't this "bridge not disrupt much, simply pass over some dated warehouses and fast food restaurants

 

That was my thought.  I would think that the new vacant land closer to downtown would be more valuable than the displaced land in Queensgate.

In reviewing the bridge alternatives, the queensgate alternative would slice through a industrial neighborhood with little to no access to anything while the I-75 highway and access would remain for downtown access and 75 to northbound 71  access and 71 to northbound 75 access.  It is not just a matter of moving the highway and then having new land available for development.

^That's one of my pet peeves. You will not have access to the new bridge will from Queensgate or River Rd. Drivers will still have to go DT to hop on it. I guess that's what the city wants, but I don't see how that will help traffic flow. And I'm still amazed that the Clay Wade Bailey bridge isn't even part of the discussion.

but if you left the spence for 71 and downtown, wouldn't you still have access to river road? And you could make 5th street the lone downtown exit, and redevelop everything north of that...

 

^That's one of my pet peeves. You will not have access to the new bridge will from Queensgate or River Rd. Drivers will still have to go DT to hop on it. I guess that's what the city wants, but I don't see how that will help traffic flow. And I'm still amazed that the Clay Wade Bailey bridge isn't even part of the discussion.

^If only it were that simple.  I would suggest re-reading this thread and any informative links.  It will demonstrate how the Queengates option would 1) Cut through the middle of Queensgate and 2) Not create any substantial land for redevelopment close to downtown because a major highway interchange to connect to I-71 southbound to I-75 north bound (and vice-versa) and I-75 southbound to downtown. The current path would not disappear, just be modified slightly. This is why many are against this option.

 

 

I hate the thought of creating ANYMORE highway footprints than what we already have.  If only we were Boston, then we could bury the damn thing from Evendale to Florence.

Could we bury it through Queensgate? Maybe we could get a deal on expressway caps - FtWashingtonWay and the Queensgate tunnel.

If we're talking about the two-bridge option with the new bridge functioning as an I-75 bypass, there's no reason why a new bridge approach in Cincinnati couldn't travel directly above Freeman Ave., then curve 45 degrees at the riverbank to cross the river. 

 

A tunnel would have to be a bored tunnel, not cut-and-cover, in order to reach the appropriate depth to cross under the river, which is somewhere around 75-100ft.  The only aesthetic issues would be two or three vent buildings.  Traffic would travel somewhat slower in the tunnel, which is a drawback of tunnels.  People always drive slower in tunnels for psychological reasons, that's why many long tunnels have signs that say 'maintain speed". 

 

Also, tunnels are typically limited to two lanes in each direction, excepting situations like the variable direction center Lincoln Tunnel tube or the 4-tube, 8 lane harbor tunnel in Baltimore. 

For the most part, Interstate 75 would need to be substantially lowered for a tunnel or a cap to be installed that could potentially place the highway in a 100-year flood plain. That would require the installation of expensive pumps that would make the highway prohibitively expensive. The highway doesn't cut through a particularly attractive area.

Queensgate is not attractive as it sits now----but Queensgate could be developed into so much more in the future.  Why give up the land? 

Industrial properties are some of the most productive properties tax-wise and typically create a lot of jobs.  This is Cincinnati's most prime industrial spot and has a real opportunity to be redeveloped into "green" industrial district as prescribed by the GoCincinnati Report.

Tolls, location problems in bridge planning

Kentucky Enquirer, February 9, 2009

 

COVINGTON, Ky. -- Government officials in northern Kentucky and southwestern Ohio find themselves discussing a bridge where they don't want one built, paid for with tolls they prefer not to collect.

 

The Brent Spence Bridge is an important link in the "snowbird route" between the Midwest and the Gulf Coast. It carries Interstate 75 between Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. It is also aging and carrying a lot more traffic than it was designed to handle.

Bill may include Brent Spence funding

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090225/NEWS01/302250131/1055/NEWS

 

Members of the Kentucky and Ohio congressional delegations are working on securing up to $800 million toward replacing the Interstate 75 Brent Spence Bridge over the Ohio River.

 

The money would be included in the transportation spending bill Congress is now drafting and could put to rest the contentious notion of paying for the project by placing a toll on the double-decker span that turns 46 this year.

Kentucky, Ohio lawmakers hope for bridge funds

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=9909254

Posted: Feb 26, 2009 08:00 AM EST

Updated: Feb 26, 2009 08:00 AM EST

 

 

COVINGTON, KY (AP) - Some of the money to replace an interstate highway bridge across the Ohio River might come from the federal government.

 

The Kentucky Enquirer reported the Kentucky and Ohio congressional delegations are trying to get up to $800 million into a transportation spending bill now being drafted.

Brent Spence may bring in $800M

Bridge to take bulk of federal spending

By Patrick Crowley • [email protected] • March 2, 2009

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090302/NEWS0108/903020363/1055/NEWS

 

WASHINGTON - With the Barack Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress spending more than a trillion dollars, can Washington spare a few billion for Northern Kentucky?

 

You never know unless you ask, and that's what about 50 members of the Northern Kentucky Chamber did for two days last week during the business group's annual Washington Fly-In.

$800 million would be huge for this project.

$800 million would be huge for this project.

 

I like how it's no big deal to give $800million for this project, but everyone screams and complains when the same amount is given for all rail infrastructure projects in the country.

I like how it's no big deal to give $800million for this project, but everyone screams and complains when the same amount is given for all rail infrastructure projects in the country.

 

Or, in Cincinnati's case, less than one quarter of that amount.

I like how it's no big deal to give $800million for this project, but everyone screams and complains when the same amount is given for all rail infrastructure projects in the country.

 

Or, in Cincinnati's case, less than one quarter of that amount.

 

or 1.5%

 

 

Queensgate off table for new bridge site

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090316/NEWS01/303160027/1055/NEWS

 

Although they do not know yet where a new Brent Spence Bridge will go, Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky officials were delighted to learn today where it apparently will not be built – Queensgate.

 

In a draft report, Ohio and Kentucky consultants working on the estimated $3 billion project recommended elimination of an option under which the bridge and the interstate ramps leading to it would have sliced through Queensgate, a neighborhood just west of downtown Cincinnati.

Now travel forecasting is by no means my specialty, but a 50000 vehicle growth in 5 years sounds totally bunk.

They have had the 150k figure for over 10 years now. I think the reporters recycle their stories and add things if something new comes along.

Bunning: No tolls on Brent Spence

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090317/NEWS0103/303170058/1055/NEWS

 

Even as Kentucky works to complete legislation that would establish new bridge tolling authorities U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning said this morning he remains opposed to using tolls on the Brent Spence bridge.

 

"I'm not for (tolls)," Bunning, a Southgate Republican, said in a conference call with Kentucky reporters.

"Preliminary Step 5 Alternatives Drawings" are now online.

 

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/Alternatives-Preliminary5.html

 

Interesting to note that they list out the regional rail proposals in the alternate plans, including the proposed streetcar routes (dashed in yellow).

 

ALTERNATE B

Pro:

1. Interstate 71/75 gains five lanes with C/D lanes north of the Dixie Highway to the split. The C/D lanes will reduce weaving and keep fast-flowing traffic from those exiting and entering the highway. The additional lane uphill and two additional lanes downhill will really aid in congestion.

2. The 4th and 5th Street interchange is reconfigured to eliminate wasted space (e.g. Interstate 71/75 NB to 5th Street ramp). The ramps are aligned in a grid for minimum space allocation, and the ramps to/from the Brent Spence Bridge and future Interstate 71 span are relocated further back towards 9th Street.

3. The footprint in DT Cincinnati is considerably reduced, with the elimination of the Interstate 75 passage by Central Avenue. This opens up land for prime redevelopment.

4. Western Hills Viaduct interchange is being reconstructed, with a reduced footprint.

 

Cons:

1. The footprint for the ramps for the Interstate 75 span are quite large.

2. Queensgate is being segmented further, reducing major redevelopment effort impacts, such as the Hudepohl Brewery effort.

 

ALTERNATE C

Pros:

1. Even smaller footprint overall, especially in Covington and Cincinnati. A lot of land is prime for redevelopment in Cincinnati west of Central Parkway.

2-3. See 1 and 4 above.

 

Cons:

1. No direct Covington connection, for the most part.

 

ALTERNATE C

Pros:

1. See above.

 

Cons:

1. See above.

 

Overall, I do like that the ramps along Interstate 75 are being consolidated into essentially one interchange, with C/D ramps. This improves upon efficiency and reduces wasted space for the ramps.

 

More coming.

I'm worried about the survival of the viaduct's arch over Spring Grove Ave.  It's unclear as to what, exactly, the plan is from these diagrams in that area.  The Brighton's Corner interchange shouldn't be the cause of too much aesthetic harm since it looks like the Brighton Bridge & flatiron building will survive. 

 

Overall this is an awful lot of commotion for a minimal improvement of traffic flow. 

Advisory Committee Meeting #6 Will be held on April 20' date=' 2009 10 a.m. at OKI Regional Council of Governments, 720 East Pete Rose Way, Suite 420, Cincinnati, Ohio[/quote']

The City of Cincinnati has released an RFP for planning/engineering firms to study options for replacement of the Western Hills Viaduct.

Couldn't find it on the City's website.  Is it only available through that subscriber-based RFP service?

Bunning reveals new Brent Spence bridge plan

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/04/13/daily41.html

 

A compromise plan for the Brent Spence Bridge replacement project will be announced next week, U.S. Senator Jim Bunning told business and government leaders who attended Wednesday’s annual meeting of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments.

 

Bunning said he was briefed on a plan recently that has the support of the departments of transportation in Kentucky and Ohio. After the meeting, Bunning said the plan involves the construction of a new span just west of the Brent Spence. It would have a four-lane highway that carries Interstate 75 traffic only.

Four lanes total or four lanes in each direction?

 

Also, 700WLW reported this afternoon that someone was walking across the bridge -- towing luggage!

it looks like we're going to get stuck with this. What an asinine solution. I realize KY owns the bridge, but come on, you cant be serious with this? All in the name of saving the 5th St exit in Covington. Two bridges will not only look ridiculous, but will eat up more land, and just move the bottleneck to where ever the new convergence of 71/75 will be.

 

We already have a bridge for local traffic, and its barely used. They cant tear it down since its connected to the RR bridge.

 

Whats wrong with a 10 to 12 lane elegant looking cable stayed bridge? I offer the new bridges in Boston and Charleston, SC as examples of multi-highway bridges combined into one.

 

They have/had the chance to do something really special here with this project, but as usual, they screwed it up. Only this time, its KY's fault.

Whats wrong with a 10 to 12 lane elegant looking cable stayed bridge? I offer the new bridges in Boston and Charleston, SC as examples of multi-highway bridges combined into one.

 

For starters, where do you put it?  You can't knock down the current bridge and then replace it, so you pretty much have to build next to it.  And a bridge that wide would have to aim at Queensgate, wouldn't it?