It would be a crime to tear down a perfectly good bridge. I'm glad they aren't. It might keep the cost low enough that this project actually gets completed before 2030. We shall see, we shall see.

Four lanes total or four lanes in each direction?

 

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

It better be 4 in each direction for I-75 and the old bridge 3 in each direction for I-71.

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.

 

You are basically proposing the most expensive alternative that will also take the longest and be the most disruptive to commuters just so Cincinnati gets a sanzy new toy.  What a waste.  I'm all for improving the appearance of the city, but tearing down the Brent Spence to build a state of the art cable-stayed doesnt make any sense.  Besides those things are ugly IMO.

The Brent Spence is butt-ugly. Now there's no point in building a signature bridge if it's going to be block by the Brent. Now that's a wasted opportunity.

 

I said this many times, I simply don't understand why the Clay Way Baily bridge isn't part of the conversation. If this is the route they choose, I now think the whole project is questionable.

I said this many times, I simply don't understand why the Clay Way Baily bridge isn't part of the conversation. If this is the route they choose, I now think the whole project is questionable.

 

I don't understand.  In what way should the Clay Way bridge be a part of the conversation?

 

It seems like a lot of you are only looking at this project as a way of getting a cool signature bridge built.  It would be nice if that happened, but that isnt the point of the project.  The point of the project is to get as many cars and trucks across the river safely as possible with as little disruption to the neighborhoods in Ohio and Kentucky as possible.  If building a signature bridge is a practical part of the solution to this problem than great.  But criticizing an alternative simply on the basis that it doesnt involve building a cool looking bridge is silly.

^Agreed.

I said this many times, I simply don't understand why the Clay Way Baily bridge isn't part of the conversation. If this is the route they choose, I now think the whole project is questionable.

 

I don't understand. In what way should the Clay Way bridge be a part of the conversation?

 

I believe Jake mentioned earlier in this thread (or elsewhere) that if we closed the 5th Street exit in Covington, forcing local traffic to use the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge, we might not need to build an additional bridge at all.

You are basically proposing the most expensive alternative that will also take the longest and be the most disruptive to commuters just so Cincinnati gets a sanzy new toy.  What a waste.  I'm all for improving the appearance of the city, but tearing down the Brent Spence to build a state of the art cable-stayed doesnt make any sense.  Besides those things are ugly IMO.

 

Sometimes the most expensive makes the most sense in the long term. How many years after this is all done do we get to hear about how the "old Brent Spence" needs a complete overhaul? If they are projecting 200,000 vehicles per day in 5 years, and splitting half onto a new bridge, thats still 100,000 on the old Brent Spence... which is *still* 25,000 vpd over capacity. How much more money will it cost to rehab and refurb this old hulk decades into the future?

 

There is plenty of room to build a modern bridge with all the necessary ramps right next to the existing struction and get rid of the old bridge. We already have plenty of local traffic bridges. Clay Wade Bailey anyone? Move the KY exits to the CWB via a new ramp from the 75-to-FWW connector. There's your local traffic component right there. Shift the alignment to run right over Gest St and there's your north approach. Meanwhile freeing up countless acres of downtown land to be redeveloped, and potential convention center expansion (for real this time--remember the "build over 75 plan"?). Everybody wins. Whats the big deal with elevating it through Queensgate anyway? Its just light industry and surface parking lots. Its not like we're taking out the train yard.

 

Yes this would be the most disruptive, but so was FWW, and we all survived that... and now look what's being constructed over there.

 

Do it right the first time.

I don't understand.  In what way should the Clay Way bridge be a part of the conversation?

 

It seems like a lot of you are only looking at this project as a way of getting a cool signature bridge built.  It would be nice if that happened, but that isnt the point of the project.  The point of the project is to get as many cars and trucks across the river safely as possible with as little disruption to the neighborhoods in Ohio and Kentucky as possible.  If building a signature bridge is a practical part of the solution to this problem than great.  But criticizing an alternative simply on the basis that it doesnt involve building a cool looking bridge is silly.

 

CWB should handle the local traffic. Get rid of the 5th St KY exit (a major component of daily rush hour backups southbound) and configure it to the CWB.

 

"It seems like a lot of you are only looking at this project as a way of getting a cool signature bridge built.  It would be nice if that happened, but that isnt the point of the project. "

 

Yes, we are all aware of the bigger picture of alleviating traffic problems, but this is the kind of thinking that keeps Cincinnati firmly rooted in the 20th century while everyone else progresses forward in the 21st. There IS a way to accomplish the basic traffic goals, and at the same time, create an icon for the city. Iconic and functionality are not mutually exclusive. Its just going to cost a little more.

 

and back to the Two Bridges scenario, all this does is move the bottleneck further south into Kentucky, as several people have mentioned before. Unless they plan to make the cut-in-the-hill 14 lanes for a few miles, this is short sighted at best.

Someone mentioned this a while back, but with VMT decreasing since 2004 (I beleive) can we reaslistically expect the number of vehicles to increase to 200k a day in five years?

I don't understand why people think a signature bridge is necessary when we already have one of the most unique bridges in the country, right in the middle of the city's riverfront.  The Taylor-Southgate might be bland, but at least they had enough sense to know that there was no use trying to compete with The Suspension Bridge. 

 

Also the traffic level clearly will not rise without some sort of Atlanta-ish growth spurt and there's no sign that that's about to happen. 

Someone mentioned this a while back, but with VMT decreasing since 2004 (I beleive) can we reaslistically expect the number of vehicles to increase to 200k a day in five years?

 

Hell no! That number might already be closer to 140,000 or below since the beginning of the recession took hold.  We would need to have a population explosion to get to 200,000.  It's just not realistic!

 

I don't understand why people think a signature bridge is necessary when we already have one of the most unique bridges in the country, right in the middle of the city's riverfront.  The Taylor-Southgate might be bland, but at least they had enough sense to know that there was no use trying to compete with The Suspension Bridge. 

 

Also the traffic level clearly will not rise without some sort of Atlanta-ish growth spurt and there's no sign that that's about to happen. 

 

Agreed!  We already have our icon, why mess with that, besides everybody in thier granny is going to have a cable stayed bridge before long.  Woopee!

Cable stayed bridges have been around for over 50 years and there are upwards of ten of them already on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. 

   

Cable stayed bridges have been around for over 50 years and there are upwards of ten of them already on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.

 

 

Truss bridges just scream "industrial wasteland", IMO. They just arent very inviting, not to mention its like looking through a chain link fence.

An additional bridge to that cluster of bridges that already exist seems like a bad idea.  It will take up that much more land for the additional approaches for the new bridge.  In the end you'll have a larger mess of ramps and what not along the Ohio River and in our center city.

 

I say build a new bridge to the west of BSB, then tear down the BSB once the new one is complete and reorganize the ramps/approaches so that local/I-71 traffic uses the older bridge that currently connects to Covington which is hardly used.

 

I-71 doesn't generate much of that traffic now as many people use the Big Mac bridge and then cut over to I-71/I-75 further south once in KY.

Two Brent Spence bridges?

http://nky.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090416/NEWS0103/304150033

 

Regional planners are set to unveil a final conceptual plan for the reconstruction of Brent Spence Bridge Monday, a “hybrid” plan that adds a new bridge just west of the existing span.

 

Under the plan, which still must be vetted by the public and approved by the federal government, local and Interstate 71 traffic would be routed over the Brent Spence while traffic from Interstate 75 would travel the new bridge. Presently, southbound traffic from both interstates converge at the Ohio terminus of the bridge.

The other benefit of two bridges is that in forty or fifty years, we won't have to worry about messing up all the traffic as much to replace/overhaul the Brent Spence. Trusses aren't the prettiest, but they work, industrial wasteland seems to be overstating a bit. I actually find cable-stayed to less attractive the more I see them. Now a modern variation on the Suspension Bridge as the partner to the Brent Spence would be cool. Even the Big Mac is a pretty interesting bridge.

Yes, we are all aware of the bigger picture of alleviating traffic problems, but this is the kind of thinking that keeps Cincinnati firmly rooted in the 20th century while everyone else progresses forward in the 21st. There IS a way to accomplish the basic traffic goals, and at the same time, create an icon for the city. Iconic and functionality are not mutually exclusive. Its just going to cost a little more.

 

I fail to see how not building a signature bridge is an example of Cincinnati being firmly rooted in the 20th century.  Bridges cost billions of dollars of taxpayer money.  There is nothing progressive about wasting money on a frivolous bridge when cheaper and less disruptive options are available. 

 

Cincy is pretty lucky to have their current fleet of bridges.  Similar river cities like St. Louis and Louisville are the ones that should be complaining about their bridges.  The main interstate crossing over the Mississippi to St. Louis is just a concrete highway overpass with no vertical feature at all.  Talk about bland. 

 

 

The closest thing St. Louis has to a signature bridge is the Eads, which also has no vertical feature (although the arch below road level is cool looking)

 

Louisville just has a pair of cantilever bridges and a couple of old railroad bridges.

A cable stayed bridge is mostly a concrete bridge and usually too wide to have any hope of being attractive.  Wide bridges are usually ugly bridges.  Add a pair of ten foot shoulders to the Golden Gate Bridge and you've got an ugly bridge.  The Taylor-Southgate Bridge is ugly because it's too wide for its length & height. 

 

The Brent Spence looks better than similarly styled bridges in Louisville and elsewhere because it's narrow because it's double-decked.  If the Big Mac was not actually a pair of bridges and instead one single fat bridge, it would not have the same presence. 

 

 

 

     

Is there any chance that the Brent Spence could be used to handle the northbound traffic of both expressways and the new bridge to handle the southbound traffic of both?  I'm not sure how you'd get cars to the top of the Brent Spence from KY, but it seems like you could cut down on the potential ramp mess that way.

One possible solution to the aesthetic issue would be to make the new bridge more-or-less a twin to the existing Brent Spence and place it fairly close to the existing span. Instead of an unruly mess of steel (see: Clay Wade Bailey / C&O hodgepodge), you'd at least have the two spans forming a cohesive whole, as with the Daniel Carter Beard and Combs-Hehl bridges. The new bridge wouldn't need to be absolutely identical, but the profile of the superstructure should at least roughly match.

 

Examples of this approach would be the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington and the Delaware Memorial Bridge on the east coast. In each case, a new span was built next to the existing span decades later, with the new span designed to be visually compatible with the older one.

 

EDIT: If the new span is also a double-deck configuration, it would have the benefit of occupying a narrower footprint, and could also potentially simplify the merge/split of I-75 and I-71 on the Kentucky side.

Aesthetically, it doesn't make much difference WHAT the new BSB looks like, because the western riverfront will continue to be dominated by that gawdawful, rusting hulk of a railroad bridge. Under the law as it stands, the states have no authority to demand upgrades or force the RRs to make their bridges conform to road-bridge standards. They are governed by federal standards (written mostly by the RRs themselves) that address only the structural integrity, not looks. That's why the RR bridges can rust and crumble to an extent that would not be allowed on bridges that carry cars.

That would probably create more ramp issues than it would solve. Both Covington and Cincinnati insisted on losing NO entry/exit points in the redesign. So it's going to be crazy complicated no matter what.

I'm more interested in the layout of the ramps than the bridge(s) themselves.

Imagine coming down the cut-in the-hill and seeing this (albeit a much different angle)...

 

 

Verrazanos-Narrows bridge in New York.

 

Double decker suspension. looks good, functions good. incredible sight at night.

 

12 lanes, 6 each deck. There's your split problem solved right there. Top deck could be 75, bottom could be 71, or vice versa.

 

Do it right the first time!!!

And able to leap from Florence to Sharonville in a single bound!

12 lanes, 6 each deck. There's your split problem solved right there. Top deck could be 75, bottom could be 71, or vice versa.

 

Do it right the first time!!!

 

The Brent Spence Bridge was built "right" the first time. Carrying three-lanes of through-traffic in each direction, it handled traffic to its design expectations for approximately 20 years before a fourth-lane was created when the shoulder was removed. It handled traffic to that design expectation for approximately 15 years before it became apparent that a new span would be needed. Several factors went into the rapid growth of traffic on the bridge:

 

1. Explosion of suburban growth in Kentucky that engineers and planners had not anticipated. The 1960s and 1970s resulted in some of the largest suburban growth anywhere.

2. The explosion in heavy-truck traffic with the slow demise of rail as a freight carrier. The creation of the Interstate Highway System helped this.

3. The lack of a true outer-bypass. Interstate 275 is not an effective bypass around the city as it is far too large. Taking Interstates 275 to 471 essentially doubles the amount of time it takes to get to the same location via Interstates 71/75 to 71.

New bridge next to Brent Spence?

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 18, 2009

 

They looked to the west. They searched far to the east.

 

They worried those on the Ohio River's north shore by pondering routes to have Interstate 71 bypass downtown Cincinnati or bisect a community for which the city has big redevelopment plans. They troubled Northern Kentuckians on the south bank by examining ideas that could have made the phrase "you can't get there from here" part of the project's legacy.

Does this mean they are going to have to take down more of the big warehouse? How does this impact bringing the 3C rail station in that area?

If the bridge bridges Longworth Hall, then no.  You can see from this photo that the current upper deck is higher than the warehouse's roof:

 

Seriously I know this is a difficult process, but it is a time sensitive issue. I dont have much reason to cross anymore unless leaving town, but after being rear ended on the bastard by an old lady and seeing my life flash before my eyes as an 18 wheeler rushed to pass out of the way I feel like more should be done to expedite a solution.

Bridge near Brent Spence in 2015?

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 21, 2009

 

Major construction on a new Brent Spence Bridge just west of the existing one probably will not begin until 2015 and is likely to displace some residents on both sides of the Ohio River, Greater Cincinnati leaders learned Monday.

 

Construction also could affect Goebel Park in Northern Kentucky, as well as the former Harriet Beecher Stowe School building and Longworth Hall in Cincinnati, an advisory committee reviewing the bridge issue was told during a 90-minute meeting at the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Downtown.

 

Officials have narrowed the search to two plans that envision a new double-decked bridge being built about 120 feet west of the existing span to absorb some of the Interstate 75/71 and local traffic that now often overwhelms the Brent Spence.

 

The two remaining options - one a combination of two earlier possibilities - are very similar and fall largely within the footprint of the existing bridge and the access ramps and highways leading to it.

 

They are being studied on parallel tracks to give the region a backup plan in the event that their minor distinctions create an obstacle for one of them. Officials hope to avoid any future delays as the bridge study enters several years of environmental, engineering and design studies.

 

U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, praised the advisory panel for responding to his challenge a year ago to quickly reach a consensus in order for the project to be eligible for up to $800 million in the 2009 federal highway authorization legislation, a process that occurs only once every six years.

 

The fact that the proposed path heavily overlaps the current bridge's route, combined with environmental reviews conducted in recent years as part of highway improvements in Northern Kentucky's I-71/75 corridor, could streamline some of the forthcoming studies, officials said.

 

Preliminary studies indicate that the new bridge project could cause a loss of homes in Covington's Lewisburg Historic District and near the Western Hills Viaduct in Cincinnati.

 

Depending on the final design, it also could affect Goebel Park and Longworth Hall and Queensgate Playground, west of downtown Cincinnati.

 

Public hearings on the bridge proposals will be held May 6 at the Gardens of Park Hills, 1622 Dixie Highway, and May 7 at the Lincoln Recreation Center, 1027 Linn St., West End. Both meetings will be from 4-8 p.m.

 

Most of the bridge money is expected to come from Washington, which local congressmen and others said is appropriate given that the bridge is a vital link in the Interstate 75/71 corridor from Michigan to Florida. The bridge carries about 160,000 cars and trucks daily - twice the capacity it was built to handle.

 

The project's budget will cover not only the new bridge, but also reconfiguration of highways and ramps approaching it.

U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, praised the advisory panel for responding to his challenge a year ago to quickly reach a consensus in order for the project to be eligible for up to $800 million in the 2009 federal highway authorization legislation, a process that occurs only once every six years.

 

The fact that the proposed path heavily overlaps the current bridge's route, combined with environmental reviews conducted in recent years as part of highway improvements in Northern Kentucky's I-71/75 corridor, could streamline some of the forthcoming studies, officials said.

 

This blurb from the story above really enforces my belief that the option selected by Ohio and Kentucky is the right one.  As fun as it would be to see a new dynamic bridge set apart from or in place of the Brent Spence go up, those options cause so many problems with displacing existing homes/businesses, environmental impacts and higher costs that there is no question in my mind that it isnt worth it. 

 

As far as aesthetics are concerned, someone posted the idea of building a twin of the Brent Spence.  I think this could look really cool.  Build an identical bridge next to the Brent Spence and give both bridges the same bold fresh coat of paint and you would have a great looking massive structure unlike any other in the country.

 

Any chance that the talented graphic design professionals/hobbyists on this board can come up with some renderings of various possibilities?

I wonder if LED's might be integrated into the design to spice it up.

I'm becoming a quick fan of the twin as well!!!

The existing Brent Spence Bridge is exactly 50ft. wide.  A true twin would also be 50ft. wide, but that's unlikely given four 12ft. lanes + emergency shoulders.  Still, after several articles, we still don't know if "four lanes" means four lanes in each direction, four total lanes, or if the new bridge will be double-decked.  Obviously an eight lane bridge with shoulders would be very wide -- wider than the Big Mac Bridge(s) are.  In fact if the new "four lane bridge" means eight lanes total, it's likely they'd build two new bridges like The Big Mac.   

 

 

 

 

Still, after several articles, we still don't know if "four lanes" means four lanes in each direction, four total lanes, or if the new bridge will be double-decked. Obviously an eight lane bridge with shoulders would be very wide -- wider than the Big Mac Bridge(s) are. In fact if the new "four lane bridge" means eight lanes total, it's likely they'd build two new bridges like The Big Mac.

 

The story above says that it will be a double decker.  I assume it would be 4 lanes on each level?

My bad.  5 years ago stories claimed that "ODOT will never build another double-decked bridge". 

As far as aesthetics are concerned, someone posted the idea of building a twin of the Brent Spence.  I think this could look really cool.  Build an identical bridge next to the Brent Spence and give both bridges the same bold fresh coat of paint and you would have a great looking massive structure unlike any other in the country.

 

I would hate to see a massive structure like the one you mention on our river.  What makes the river and its surrounding hills beautiful is the river and its surrounding hills...why would you want to hide all that with a massive chunk of twisted steel over our river?

Here are the five alternatives that I have listed on my site, which was updated not long ago. This does not take into account alternatives or discussions that stem from the prior two months.

 

Alternative 1: A new bridge about 1,000 ft. west of the Brent Spence Bridge with five lanes in each direction that would carry Interstate 75. The existing Brent Spence Bridge would be renovated and would carry Interstate 71 and local traffic. This option would displace about 102 single-family residences, 58 multi-family residences and 23 commercial properties in Northern Kentucky. Total displaced: 183.

 

Alternative 2: A new bridge about 1,000 ft. west of the Brent Spence Bridge with seven lanes in each direction would carry Interstate 71 and Interstate 75 traffic. The existing Brent Spence Bridge would be renovated and handle local traffic. This option would displace about 102 single-family residences, 58 multi-family residences and 23 commercial properties in Northern Kentucky. Total displaced: 183.

 

Alternative 3: A new bridge would be built adjacent to the Brent Spence Bridge with five lanes in each direction that would carry Interstate 75 traffic while a renovated Brent Spence Bridge would handle Interstate 71 and local traffic. This option would displace about 72 single-family residences, 32 multi-family residences and 19 commercial properties in Northern Kentucky. Total displaced: 123.

 

Alternative 4: The Brent Spence Bridge would be torn down and a new bridge, a double-decker, would be built to carry five lanes of Interstate 75 traffic in each direction on the top and three lanes in each direction on the bottom for Interstate 71 and local traffic. This alternative would displace about 82 single-family residences, 32 multi-family residences and 19 commercial properties in Northern Kentucky. Total displaced: 133.

 

Alternative 5: Two new bridges would be built on either side of the Brent Spence Bridge, one with five lanes for northbound Interstate 75 traffic and the other with five lanes for southbound Interstate 75 traffic, with a rehabilitated Brent Spence Bridge carrying three lanes of Interstate 71 and local traffic in each direction. This alternative would displace about 72 single-family residences, 24 multi-family residences and 18 commercial properties in Northern Kentucky. Total displaced: 114.

As far as aesthetics are concerned, someone posted the idea of building a twin of the Brent Spence. I think this could look really cool. Build an identical bridge next to the Brent Spence and give both bridges the same bold fresh coat of paint and you would have a great looking massive structure unlike any other in the country.

 

I would hate to see a massive structure like the one you mention on our river. What makes the river and its surrounding hills beautiful is the river and its surrounding hills...why would you want to hide all that with a massive chunk of twisted steel over our river?

 

Well when you call it a "massive chunk of twisted steel" it doesnt sound nice at all.  I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that building a big ass bridge is going to somehow ruin the beauty of the surrounding hills and the river below. 

 

The reality is that we are going to get some massive structure given the decision to build a second bridge immediately adjacent to the Brent Spence.  I think that it will look more elegant if it is constructed to visually relate to the Brent Spence.  One way to do that is to build a twin, but there are probably other cool ways to design a bridge that plays off of the Brent Spence.

Imagine coming down the cut-in the-hill and seeing this (albeit a much different angle)...

 

 

Verrazanos-Narrows bridge in New York.

 

Double decker suspension. looks good, functions good. incredible sight at night.

 

12 lanes, 6 each deck. There's your split problem solved right there. Top deck could be 75, bottom could be 71, or vice versa.

 

Do it right the first time!!!

 

We really should have just gone with this option:

 

All the reclaimed land could be a part of new downtown blocks and a new plan for Queensgate.

I don't want this to be doubled.

 

 

There's going to be a huge mess of approach ramps no matter what form the new bridge takes. The least they can do is to make the new bridge visually compatible to the one it's being built next to, even if it's a bit wider.

what is wrong with this country?  When are we going to realize we need to tear down all highways in our urban cores?  Highways like this have no place in our cities IMO.  Lets start seeing some massive teardown and lets just not build it back up.  :) 

Interstate 275 cannot handle another 150,000 vehicles per day, and would need extensive rebuilding, widening and major modifications to do that. The costs of that alone would be at least the cost of the Brent Spence Bridge -- new or expanded Ohio River spans, rebuilt overpasses, expanded roadway capacity, modified interchanges...

As much as I support mass transit, cars and trucks will always be with us, and the Interstate Highway System is an important part of our national infrastructure. I think a case could have been made to eliminate Fort Washington Way (let I-75 to I-71 traffic use I-275/471 or the Norwood Lateral instead, and use the former Ft. Washington Way land to re-connect downtown to the riverfront) before it was rebuilt, but I-75 is a pretty crucial part of the highway system.

 

Even Europe and Japan -- the gold standard for inter-city rail systems -- also have well-developed highway systems.

Interstate 275 cannot handle another 150,000 vehicles per day, and would need extensive rebuilding, widening and major modifications to do that. The costs of that alone would be at least the cost of the Brent Spence Bridge -- new or expanded Ohio River spans, rebuilt overpasses, expanded roadway capacity, modified interchanges...

 

Was this in response to what I said?  If so....what's your point?  Plus, I am not completely serious in that I think we need to have a massive overhaul in our transportation today, but I think in the near future, we need to start rethinking urban highways.  What Portland has done with their former downtown highway and Boston's Big Dig are just setting the trend. 

Even Europe and Japan -- the gold standard for inter-city rail systems -- also have well-developed highway systems.

 

A lot of those cities don't have large highway systems cutting through their core.  Typically, the highway ends far and away from the cores. 

Interstate 275 cannot handle another 150,000 vehicles per day, and would need extensive rebuilding, widening and major modifications to do that. The costs of that alone would be at least the cost of the Brent Spence Bridge -- new or expanded Ohio River spans, rebuilt overpasses, expanded roadway capacity, modified interchanges...

 

Was this in response to what I said? If so....what's your point? Plus, I am not completely serious in that I think we need to have a massive overhaul in our transportation today, but I think in the near future, we need to start rethinking urban highways. What Portland has done with their former downtown highway and Boston's Big Dig are just setting the trend.

 

Yes, it was in reply. What highway did Portland remove? Interstates 5 and 405 still exist, and although I would love to see Interstate 5 removed, at the time it was built, it was through a highly industrialized area that is rapidly changing.

 

You may be thinking of Seattle, which is still deciding on what to do with Oregon State Route 99 that cuts through the center of the city. For that, it is wise to remove because it is not up to modern earthquake standards and is in poor condition, has poor geometric deficiencies, and is not the main north-south thoroughfare -- Interstate 5 to the east is.

 

The Big Dig is a poor example, but mainly due to the political nature of the bit. It was grossly over cost estimates by billions and billions; it was mirrored in controversy and political scandals (per Massachusetts' usual bit), and has poorly built components. The tunnel leaks far more than it should by design (all tunnels leak); it had faulty roofing panels that were not adequately secured; it had poor concrete forms and pours. Outside of that, $14 billion for a two-mile reconstruction project was not worth the cost. The old highway should have been demolished, but the project could have been handled much better.