^You always speak as if highways are an absolute necessity Sherman.  If it weren't for the way our shipping systems are set up around trucking then the highways wouldn't be necessary the way they currently are.

 

Interstates essentially do nothing more for local traffic than speed it up and offer a different route.  A well-connected street network could handle these needs without the existence of interstates.  You could significantly reduce the size and scope of the interstate system to be something specific for trucking, but that would look dramatically different and dramatically smaller than the behemoth interstates we see ripping through the centers of all American cities.

The total cost of the Big Dig involved a lot more than just the downtown tunnel.  It also included The Ted Williams Tunnel (new harbor tunnel) and I-90 extension through South Boston.  Also part of the Tobin Bridge approach was rebuilt in a tunnel north of the Zakim Bridge, which itself was pure pork.  It did could have been built as a typical deck girder bridge but instead they built it as a cable-stayed bridge so they'd have something to show for such a big but largely underground project. 

 

I don't know how much just the downtown section of the Big Dig cost (does anyone?), but the tunnel itself would not have been so expensive if they had not gone to great lengths to keep the elevated I-93 active during construction of the tunnel directly beneath. 

 

Underground expressways are tough because the widths of the bores and tunnel boxes are much greater than what rail requires.  Some sections of the Big Dig tunnel (where there are merge lanes) approach 100ft. wide with no pillars.  Underwater tunnels are typically limited to two lanes so something like a Brent Spence Tunnel would require numerous tubes.  Also people drive slower in tunnels than on bridges, which is another problem compared to rail.     

"As much as I support mass transit, cars and trucks will always be with us..."

 

  See the peak oil thread. It is my humble belief that the automobile age will be over sooner than most people think.

 

 

I'm not a big fan of interstates but I'm just don't see this as the place to make that stand. Europeans have also pretty much abandoned their historic cores to be history sites or have massively subsidized transit to take folks there. The Autobahn in southern Germany gets you pretty close to the core - more like an exit at about the lateral for some towns. They also have massive train stations with all the real estate taken by rail lines (Cologne, Frankfurt, Rome, Florence, Venice are the ones I've seen first hand). It is worth noting that 75 is a paved replacement for the canals, this is a fundamental artery even if the northern end has fallen on hard times (Detroit et al.). Also any attempt using the current system to take traffic away from the core will only exacerbate sprawl not solve it.

 

That picture makes me even more hope for a near twin of the Brent Spence. Put some flag poles atop the two peaks and call it a day.

The total cost of the Big Dig involved a lot more than just the downtown tunnel.  It also included The Ted Williams Tunnel (new harbor tunnel) and I-90 extension through South Boston.  Also part of the Tobin Bridge approach was rebuilt in a tunnel north of the Zakim Bridge, which itself was pure pork.  It did could have been built as a typical deck girder bridge but instead they built it as a cable-stayed bridge so they'd have something to show for such a big but largely underground project.

 

I don't know how much just the downtown section of the Big Dig cost (does anyone?), but the tunnel itself would not have been so expensive if they had not gone to great lengths to keep the elevated I-93 active during construction of the tunnel directly beneath. 

 

Underground expressways are tough because the widths of the bores and tunnel boxes are much greater than what rail requires.  Some sections of the Big Dig tunnel (where there are merge lanes) approach 100ft. wide with no pillars.  Underwater tunnels are typically limited to two lanes so something like a Brent Spence Tunnel would require numerous tubes.  Also people drive slower in tunnels than on bridges, which is another problem compared to rail.

 

It was $14 billion for the newest sections of the Big Dig, which involved the Zakim Bridge and tunnel under the downtown sans the Ted Williams. The MTA is so corrupt; they are now raising the toll rates of the Massachusetts Turnpike to help pay for the Big Dig, after pressure from the state.

 

^You always speak as if highways are an absolute necessity Sherman.  If it weren't for the way our shipping systems are set up around trucking then the highways wouldn't be necessary the way they currently are.

 

They are. For as long as the United States has been around, freight has been shipped in a variety of methods. Once regulated by horse and buggy, railroads came into existence which expedited shipment at longer distances, but you still required horse and buggy, and later short-haul trucks to take freight from the station to the customer. During most of the 20th century, freight fell out of favor for long-haul shipping that turned to long-haul trucks, and that position is slowly reversing as the costs of fuel and personnel have become too great to ship freight long-haul via truck.

 

Trucks (and therefore highways) will always be a necessity because you cannot realistically place railroads to every distribution center, every warehouse, and every customer that consumes or produces freight. You still need short-haul trucks to carry goods from a freight warehouse or intermodal center to a customer. In addition, many manufacturing customers demand "just-in-time" delivery to reduce the needs for warehousing, which is costs that are simply eaten and not recovered. Toyota is a very good example of this. Their Georgetown plant relies a lot on freight via railroad, but many of its "just-in-time" components come in via truck. There is simply no other way to handle that. Rail is too slow for that.

 

You'll always have demand for both modes of transport (excluding air freight since it is so minimal), and while it was skewed in favor of the trucking industry for much of the 20th century, the same can be said for the monopolies that railroads held for much of the 19th century.

^You think in terms of the world we know today, instead of the possibility of what are world could become.  Interstates are not an absolute necessity for a successful and sustainable society.

In a utopia, where we danced in harmony, had no wars, had no automobiles, bought everything local and green, perhaps. But realistically speaking, for the next one-hundred years, we need a true intermodal freight network that relies on highways, railroads, and waterways to deliver goods across the nation and world. Cincinnati participates in a global economy, and contains major north-south trade routes, both by railroad and highway, and east-west trade routes via the Ohio River, and we cannot just close those routes off so that Cincinnati can live in this utopia that does not and can not realistically exist.

 

In terms of removing Interstate 75, that is a possibility but not without major upgrades to Interstate 275 to handle the increased traffic. As much as you can upgrade railroads and praise their efficiency, you still would need to haul goods to each individual distribution center, warehouse and store that only trucks can provide. Railroads were losing money with most short-hauls back in the early 1900s, and as much as people would not want to admit it, railroads were losing money with passenger service long before the interstate highway system arrived.

 

The Cincinnati, Lebanon & Northern Railroad that went from Cincinnati to Dayton was losing money on passenger operations from the early 1900s onward. Hell, the Avondale branch that was never fully extended, was losing money from the late 1800s! Streetcars and then the automobile finally killed the remainder of the passenger traffic on the railroad. The Cincinnati & Westwood Railroad was pretty much a money loser in its entire existence. The Cincinnati, Georgetown & Portsmouth Railroad continuously lost money and had to be reorganized time and time again; it was never extended east from Hillsboro, and its passenger operations were all but sunk.

 

And this was a time when government intervention into railroad profitability was non-existent. While we do this to Interstate Highways to an extent, much of the work that is completed on the roadways comes from fuel taxes and surcharges. Of course, I have and still do advocate for open-road, high-speed tolling of existing interstate highways in rural areas where they are feasible, but until we can petition to the FHWA to allow for tolling of existing, completed highways that were paid with federal dollars, then we can't do a damn thing about it.

^It's really not that extreme of an idea and if you re-read my original post about why interstates aren't an absolute necessity you'll see why.  You're making a lot of assumptions that there are no alternatives and this is not true.

In a utopia, where we danced in harmony, had no wars, had no automobiles, bought everything local and green, perhaps. But realistically speaking...

 

In a world where gasoline is $12 a gallon, no one will be able to afford personal automobiles.  Reality is going to smack us in the face real quick.

In a world where gasoline is $12 a gallon, no one will be able to afford personal automobiles. Reality is going to smack us in the face real quick.

 

If you had told someone in 1970 that their 35 cent gasoline would be $4.00 gallon in 2008 they might have said the same thing.

I think personal automobiles will still exist for a long time after we've stopped using petroleum... They'll just have a different fuel source. Automakers can see the writing on the wall, and things are already beginning to move in that direction.

Lasted I checked, Europe has had 8-10 dollar gasoline for a gallon and they have big expensive highway bridges and systems. Much poorer countries in which fuel costs more per capita than the US have major highway systems. I'd also add that the first to go would not be a major crossing of a river near a major population center. It would be the expensive rural bridges that receive minimal traffic and basically knit together regions with high populations.

Correct. $12/gallon may sound like a deal breaker for the entire automotive industry, but it isn't. Alternative fuel sources will eventually be developed for mass-consumption, but it is dependent on the economics of the situation and government will and pressure. Europe and a lot of Asian countries have been dealing with $8/gallon to $15/gallon for years, mostly as a result of very high fuel surcharges, but their highway systems are regarded as some of the finest in the world. Whereas we often take the cheapest route possible, European highways will often take a route less destructive and more expensive as a result. Tunnels are a rarity here; they are very commonplace there. And so forth. I can go into much more detail, but it would be completely off-topic.

 

$12/gallon? If we allotted for the natural rise in gasoline prices corresponding with OPEC's price fluctuations, most rational economics believe that a $2/gallon rise per year, capping at $8/gallon by 2015, would be justifiable and lead to breakthrough innovations in new fuel sources and implements. There are very few that believe in peak oil will occur before then; and even if peak oil were to occur within my lifetime, there will be other fuel sources.

 

There are people who bemoaned that we would be facing the prospects of life after automobiles in the 1970s; the 1980s and today. Current evidence does not back up those assertions, so we must be realistic and base our decisions on current facts and figures. I'm one of the strongest advocates for rail transportation, but I can even see that we need an intermodal network of transportation links for freight, and different modes of transport for passengers.

 

No one has responded to the comments about railroads being non-self sufficient, even back in the 1800s. Highways are not either, which is why both require massive subsidies.

I'm just saying that a well-connected and designed system of streets can handle the demand for personal automobile trips.  We have artificially created this need for interstates for personal use.

 

I understand that trucking is a necessary component of our shipping network and understand they need a network of highways to transport goods in an efficient way.  My point is that you could design the interstate system in a way to function for this shipping alone and it would drastically change the way our interstates function and work within our cities.  They would be much smaller, less polluting, more efficient and less congested.  They would be serving their purpose.

Sherman, do you see the city as a machine or as an organism? 

Comparing Cincinnati to Boston, Boston's metro is roughly 2x Cincinnati's and its downtown employs 3-4x as many.  Cincinnati has five radial interstates as well as Columbia Parkway and River Rd./6th St. Expressway.  By comparison Boston has three interstate approaches (Mass Turnpike, 93 north, 93 south).  It also has Rt. 1 (a state highway), and Storrow Drive, which have capacities similar to Columbia Parkway.  So overall it has much less auto capacity.  It does have a streetcar system (Green lines) which carries 225,000 passengers a day (1/3 more than the Brent Spence Bridge) and three subway lines.  It also has a huge commuter rail system and one BRT line. 

 

I think Cincinnati definitely would have been fine without I-471 and I-71.  I-75 could have served the city as well as it does and caused less damage if it had been built on the west side of the Mill Creek and bridged the river at Ludlow, as was originally planned.  I also think Cross County Hwy should have not been built and could have instead served as a commuter rail corridor. 

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. 

 

Tokyo, for one, has an extensive, elevated highway system thru its large urban core, I think other large Japanese cities and Singapore are similar.

Tokyo, for one, has an extensive, elevated highway system thru its large urban core, I think other large Japanese cities and Singapore are similar

 

Even better.

 

"A group of business executives is floating the idea of burying all of Tokyo's elevated highways 60 meters underground. The megaproject also includes a sweeping greening of the space they will leave behind and large-scale redevelopment at key highway ramps".

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20080331a1.html

 

Last time I was in Japan I finally got to travel by car on the expressway from Tokyo to Odawara. The Tomei Expressway is the busiest stretch of expressway in Japan. The cool thing about it is that it's 2 lanes wide on each side. Super high tolls keep the vehicles to a minimum.

I'm just saying that a well-connected and designed system of streets can handle the demand for personal automobile trips. We have artificially created this need for interstates for personal use.

 

I understand that trucking is a necessary component of our shipping network and understand they need a network of highways to transport goods in an efficient way. My point is that you could design the interstate system in a way to function for this shipping alone and it would drastically change the way our interstates function and work within our cities. They would be much smaller, less polluting, more efficient and less congested. They would be serving their purpose.

 

Personal automobile trips, yes. But what about serving the industry? Do you think P&G today would keep their factories along Mill Creek if there was a lack of interstate access? Or any industry? You can only go so far with rail before you require additional intermodal connections.

 

The Interstate Highway system can function fine, serving both automobiles and trucks alike, but I agree that a reduction is needed but canning Interstates alltogether is not an option. That only increases local congestion. Tolling roads, increasing motor fuel taxes, creating additional incentives to take mass transit, making mass transit more appealing to the masses (Metro is not all that appealing for the masses, hence the relative low usage even within the city and along routes), and providing more mass transit options are options that can visibly reduce local trips around the city.

 

I suggested earlier that if you canned one of the major arteries through Cincinnati, then you'd need to provide better alternatives, such as an upgraded Interstate 275 to handle the additional 125,000 VPD -- or the projected 200,000 VPD, in addition to the 70,000 VPD that some of Interstate 275 already carries. Eliminating say, Interstates 71 and 75, and then expecting traffic to magically disappear, won't happen. It will just migrate.

I suggested earlier that if you canned one of the major arteries through Cincinnati, then you'd need to provide better alternatives, such as an upgraded Interstate 275 to handle the additional 125,000 VPD -- or the projected 200,000 VPD, in addition to the 70,000 VPD that some of Interstate 275 already carries. Eliminating say, Interstates 71 and 75, and then expecting traffic to magically disappear, won't happen. It will just migrate.

 

It has actually been studied that when these eliminations have occurred elsewhere traffic didn't disappear, but it did reorganize.  What happens is that congestion might temporarily increase, but then people get smart and change their patterns to avoid the congestion.  Some may leave earlier or later to avoid peak hours, others may carpool, some may choose transit, etc.  So you may see an increase in VPD, but it is distributed in a way that doesn't affect peak hour times.  In reality this is what we're talking about since the capacities aren't maxed out for the vast majority of each day.  It's more like 2-4 hours of each day - max.  If we can be smarter about how we organize our traffic then we don't have to add all this capacity as you suggest.

But if you are wrong, downtown is dead. I'm overstating it a bit, no single place in Greater Cincinnati is a dominant enough node to start thinking about making it harder to move around. I'd argue that Uptown has declined over the last twenty years in part because getting in and out of that area is a pain (and it was worse fifty years ago). While UC's growth has mitigated it somewhat, it worth remembering that Uptown has lost two independent hospitals, a major hotel, and two formerly significant business districts in the last thirty years in part because of the poor transportation connections. West Chester can become the new downtown and it doesn't need any bridges and it is already 8+ lanes of highway. Could mass transit have helped absolutely, but so could have an exit at MLK or even Victory Parkway.

^---"Eliminating say, Interstates 71 and 75, and then expecting traffic to magically disappear, won't happen. It will just migrate."

 

  Not exactly true. There is a cost associated with transportation, and this affects the supply and demand for transportation. The less it costs for transportation, the farther that goods will be shipped.

 

    The overwhelming pattern over the last 100 years was for transportation to become more affordable, and therefore traffic counts have risen. It can also work the other way. If transportation becomes less affordable, traffic counts will go down.

 

    If the Brent Spence would disappear, some of the traffic would be diverted to the other bridges, but not all. Some of the traffic would disappear.

 

    Traffic counts do not add arithmetically.

I don't want this to be doubled.

 

 

 

I could not agree more!! Sadly, due to the political structure and timing of the Transportation bill, we're stuck with this latest "hybrid" crap of a plan and we'll have another massive hulk of a girder bridge to look at for another 70 years.

 

Queensgate needs a complete overhaul anyway, why not use the one bridge option and redevelop the reclaimed areas? Downtown could add another 25% of actual city blocks. The convention center could be expanded to something respectable instead of something the size of a suburban furniture store. Not to mention a 2 x 5 bridge would be something of stature. I'm sorry, this just infuriates me.

What is the timetable on when construction begins on the Brent Spence???

Cantilever truss bridges of the Brent Spence's type aren't being built anymore so it's unlikely the twin will look like much more than an imitation of the existing bridge.  The Taylor-Southgate is built of newer, higher strength steel that necessitates fewer truss members.  I'd expect the new Brent Spence to be similar to the Taylor-Southgate, at least in this respect.   

 

The new Tacoma Narrows Bridge is hideous compared to the previous one (the replacement for the one that collapsed), which itself wasn't too much of a looker.  It illustrates my point about mandated wider lanes and emergency shoulders resulting in clunky wide bridges.  Also concrete is currently a much more popular material than it once was.  Riveted steel girders don't make sense any more by comparison, but they sure looked a lot better.   

 

I took this picture of the two Tacoma Narrows bridges while riding Amtrak:

 

Also everyone kicking and screaming for a cable-stayed bridge, after the Sunshine Skyway in Tampa, they all went downhill.  That's a very long bridge so it has a skinny profile.  A 10 lane cable-stayed bridge over the Ohio would look even worse than the four lane ones that already cross it in several places. 

I really wish the committee would sponsor a design competition for the bridge.  The thing is going to cost an absorbent amount of money, why not make it architecturally significant?  Lots of design firms and engineers alike are running low on work right now, so they're more likely to compete in such a competition.  I have seen some amazing "truss" structures designed lately.  I agree a cable stayed or suspension bridge is probably out of the question because the span is pretty short.

I actually think that a cable-stayed bridge, which Cincinnati does not have, would be attractive... just not adjacent to the Brent Spence. The majority of the new spans over the Ohio River in the past decade have been cable-stayed spans because they are cheaper to construct and maintain.

 

This situation is being played out very similarly in Louisville. While the east-end Interstate 265 span will be a beautiful cable-stayed variant, the downtown bridge -- which will be constructed adjacent to the current Interstate 65 cantilever (similar to Brent Spence, only on one level), is much worse.

 

^Interstate 265, beautiful

 

^Interstate 65's twin span, hideous

 

For comparson, not all are ugly:

 

^East Huntington, W.Va. cable-stayed, constructed as a demonstration span, was the third such type structure in the U.S.

 

 

 

  We have discussed this already. The Ohio River is about 1000 feet wide at the Brent Spence Bridge. A typical lane on a new highway is 12 feet wide. Say the new bridge is 5 lanes wide with shoulders. This is about 80 feet.

 

  80/1000 is visually much wider than say, 24/1000. It's almost four times as wide. 80/1000 is always going to look chunky and not graceful.

 

    That Lousiville photo is also pretty because of the background: water, trees, and sky. The Brent Spence replacement is going to have a lot of access ramps. At present, one of the ramps is higher than the bridge deck because it had to clear a railroad, which is itself elevated.

Why not something like the Sai Van bridge in Macau?

 

Its double-decked and has a similar main span to what the Brent Spence has. It could be modified as a true double decker bridge (since the actual bridge has an enclosed lower box, for use during high winds).

 

^That's too pretty for Cincy. It has to be as utilitarian as possible.  :|

^ that is a great looking bridge.  A couple of questions about cost.

 

-How much are modern suspension bridges like the Sai Van compared to cable stayed bridges?

 

-Is there any chance that they build a plain, highway overpass-type bridge? I mentioned a few pages ago that the main interstate into St. Louis crosses the Mississippi on what is essentially a highway overpass.  I would like to be reassured that such a solution will not happen.

I don't think a bridge like your talking about would happen.  I'm not positive, but I think there are rules dictating where supports can be placed in order to maintain the shipping lane in the Ohio.  The Mississippi in St. Louis probably has different rules that allow for multiple spans.  Plus, a bridge like that is probably cheaper in material cost, but higher in labor cost.

 

The bridge in Macau is beautiful, by the way.  I still feel like a truss makes the most sense here though.  But who knows.. this is why I say host a design competition.  There are beautiful things that can be done with trusses, even.

Re: bridge width - current plan seems to be 6 lanes for the new I-75 bridge - 6 lanes x 12' + 2 x 10' shoulders + 2 x 2' for railings = 96'.  Depending on the type of structure, it could get a bit wider (if the roadway travels through a cable-stay tower for example).

 

Re: Bridge type - Suspension doesn't make sense for span length in question.  Cable-stayed would make sense if they want to clear span the river (no piers in the water).  They would save money by putting piers in the water (shorter spans) but would eliminate cable-stayed as a cost-effective design.  But that would also open up extradosed (cross between cable-stayed and concrete segmental) as a viable type.  Another truss is certainly a cost effective option.  With piers in the water, another option is a gantry-launched concrete segmental, which could minimize impacts on the ground.

 

Re: Design competition - It likely comes down to money.  Based on what happened in Louisville, I would expect that, at a minimum, there is some kind of public input opportunity.  Personal opinion: True design competitions would likely draw out all the star-chitects, which are only going to increase the cost and we've all seen how well KY and OH are doing on finding the $$ for the project.

The old Eads Bridge in St. Louis has a center arch span of 520ft.  This is roughly as wide as the L&N Bridge.  I think that's why they were able to build a deck girder bridge with a span that short.  The Brent Spence Bridge's main span is 830.5ft, significantly longer.   

The FHWA will require a bridge type study during the next phase of the project which would examine potential configurations for the bridge including spans, type and clearances etc.  I would expect that a truss or cable stayed bridge will be the alternatives to be considered.  I think most would prefer a cable stayed bridge but being located immediately west of the existing Brent Spence and sandwiched between the Clay Wade Bailey and Southern Railroad bridge would make a truss with similar geometry to the existing bridge would allow the new bridge to fit in better.  If is it to be a double deck span a truss is likely to be a more effective option although an Arch may also work.

 

The approach span on the Ohio side will still be elevated to clear the CSX tracks.  The Coast Guard and hydraulic analysis of the scour potential near the existing piers will likely dictate that  the new piers be located in line with the exiting bridge for the most part.

 

  At one time there was a rumor that the Army Corp of Engineers would not allow construction of another bridge unless one of the existing ones were removed, because the Cincinnati area of the Ohio River is already difficult to navigate because of all the bridges. I don't know if that story is true or not.

I don't think a new bridge with piers aligned with existing piers counts as a new bridge.  And they definitely wouldn't be this far along in the process if a new bridge could not be built. 

 

There were plans in the 90's for a new bridge at Race St. but the IRS was supposedly responsible for that being scuttled.  I think we will see that idea revisited because TANK's buses are now forced to use the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge which adds 2 miles rt to many bus routes.  Considering the poor gas mileage of city buses, it adds up to an awful lot of fuel.  If it adds 100 miles to a bus per week, that's 50,000 per decade per bus that used to use the Suspension Bridge.  So millions of extra miles per decade spread throughout the fleet. 

 

Yeah, that was the plan.  The light rail bridge was planned immediately next to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge even though that Race St. alignment made a lot more sense given the location of Covington's Transit Center and the shorter distance for existing bus routes.  I believe the light rail bridge was pushed over there because of the IRS.  I heard directly from someone at Parsons-Brinkerhoff that light rail right-of-way has been preserved in the new Brent Spence Bridge plan, but I don't know exactly what that entails.   

 

I think what makes the most sense is when the IRS moves out that a combined light rail & bus bridge be built from the IRS's property over to Elm or Race.  By keeping cars off they wouldn't have to build emergency shoulders although I'd hope they'd include a pedestrian & bike walk.  When the Suspension Bridge is closed for repairs, they could let cars on.     

That would make entirely too much sense.

 

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet will be holding two (2) public meetings on the Conceptual Alternatives Study (CAS) for the Brent Spence Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation Project.

 

  The first meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at the Gardens of Park Hills, Vista Room, 1622 Dixie Highway, Park Hills, Kentucky from 4pm to 8pm.

  The second meeting will be held on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at the Cincinnati Recreation Center, Lincoln Recreation Center, 1027 Linn Street, Cincinnati, Ohio from 4pm to 8pm.

  Meetings will be in an “open house” (informal format) style and you may visit at any time.  Detailed illustrations of alternatives still under consideration will be available and project team members can answer your questions. No formal presentations will be made. The same information will be provided at each meeting.

The entire Conceptual Alternatives Study (CAS) is online

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/studydocs/ConceptualAlternativesStudy.html

 

And in here:

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/Documents/Conceptual%20Alternatives%20Study%20April%202009/Brent%20Spence%20Bridge%20Conceptual%20Alternative%20Study%20April%202009.pdf

 

7.7.1 Recommended Feasible Alternatives

The comparative analysis led to the recommendation of carrying forward two feasible

alternatives.  The two feasible alternatives consist of Alternative E and a combination of

Alternatives C and D.  Based on the analyses completed and feedback as part of

community input, it is also recommended that certain design elements (as listed above)

of Alternative G be incorporated into the two feasible alternatives in Step 6 of the Ohio

Department of Transportation’s Project Development Process.  Additionally, the two

feasible alternatives will be designed to provide three lanes in each direction on I-75.

Some interesting info gathered at tonight's meeting:

 

-The existing bridge might be reconfigured with northbound on the top deck and southbound on the bottom deck

 

-Could be reconfigured with as few as *two* lanes per deck

 

-Longworth Hall will almost surely be "mitigated", which means partially demo'd

 

-I-75 south *might* have a direct connection to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge...this would consist of a ramp coming to a 4-way intersection with 3rd St. opposite the bridge

 

-Light Rail ROW will be preserved on the west side of I-75 through the cut.  More ROW will be preserved on 12th St. in Covington, and tracks can then head north either along the C&O tracks or on Madison. 

 

-Good chance the Western Hills Viaduct arch over Spring Grove will be demo'd.

 

-Good chance McMillan St. will be widened between Central Parkway and McMicken, taking a number of properties

 

-Fancy twin overpasses possible for Ezzard Charles Dr. leading to Union Terminal

 

-UPS is lording over the whole thing because they don't want either of their properties affected in any way

 

-"Good chance the Western Hills Viaduct arch over Spring Grove will be demo'd."

 

  Please, make it stop. Have they no shame?

That's good news about the light rail ROW. It's a shame the region doesn't have it yet, but at least they're thinking ahead and piecing together some important elements.

I forgot to ask them what's happening with the I-75 S ramps to and from the lower deck of the Western Hills Viaduct.  I have for several years now thought it would be great if they kept the existing viaduct standing as a park like the New York high line. 

I don't think most people in Cincinnati value the Western Hills Viaduct in the way they probably should.  It is a gem and it's a real shame that it seems to be viewed as a disposable entity presently.

I got thinking about this whole thing today.  It's an awful lot of changes for what amounts functionally to adding some lanes.  Just out of curiousity, do we really need FWW anymore?  I know that we just rebuilt it, but now that 471 exists and most of the FWW downtown exits are gone, it seems a bit superflous. 

 

I was thinking, what if we just shut down FWW so that I-75 and I-71 never combine?  Keep the 71 traffic on 71/471/275 and keep the 75 traffic on 75.  Then go ahead and cap FWW, and expand the RTC into the then-unused space to become the new Amtrak terminal, since apparently CUT is out.  I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why this wouldn't work, but the current plan isn't exactly what I'd call ideal.

It is amazing that this wasn't the decision when they redid FFW.  It does make sense.

^^I like that idea a lot.

Or, change FWW to a C/D system that does not connect to the BSB.  I-71 S could take FWW over to I-75 N.  But to continue on I-71 S into Kentucky, you would take the Big Mac Bridge and I-471 (renamed I-71), and follow I-275 back over to I-71/75 South.  I-75/71 between I-275 and the BMB would become just I-75.