Would it be possible to take the new Alternative D and add the connection from I-75 S to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge (a seen in Alternative G)?  I think that would be the best option out of what we've been given.

Longworth should be off limits.  West Hills Viaduct too!

The city is looking to rehab or replace the viaduct at the same time as the reconstruction of I-75.  The deadline for the City RFP was today.

While I understand the viaduct's historic significance, it's eastern approach presents some antiquated design flaws that need to be corrected. One of the more serious issues are the ramps to Interstate 75 from the lower deck. I'm not for sure why the designers at the time thought it would be approperiate to snake two ramps between the legs that create awful geometric and sight distance deficiencies, but those ramps should be removed regardless of reconstruction or not.

 

Given that the city is looking to do an extensive rehabilitation project (e.g. closure for over one year) or replacement, I'm fairly certain that the Interstate 75 reconstruction project will be coordinated with that. With that, ODOT is looking to replicate what will exist in the future, in terms of design. If the existing bridge is kept, then ODOT will reconstruct the arches or some variant as long as it is feasible. If it is replaced, then ODOT will construct the design that Cincinnati chooses for the new viaduct.

This now confirms my belief that I am officially old.  I lived through a one year WH Viaduct closing in the 70's for the first rehab since its original construction.  To think that the second one us upon us is mind boggling!

 

It is hard to accept the reality that all these long term projects may not be complete in my lifetime.

I hate the look of the Brent Spence Bridge, I was hoping that they would tear it down after they built a replacement bridge.  I had this pipe dream of a landmark bridge replacing it but I guess I can move on past my fairy tale now.

>replace the viaduct

 

No, they're only looking to rebuild it between Central Parkway and a point about 1/3 across.  This would allow reconstruction of the I-75 ramps on the lower deck, although the current suicide situation could be eliminated by simply blocking off the right lane between Spring Grove and the ramp, giving the ramp its own lane. 

 

If they're able to sneak a complete reconstruction into the I-75 federal funding, and essentially get the feds to partially pay for a city-owned structure, then we might see the whole thing replaced.  But building a new viaduct in line with Queen City Ave. instead of Harrison would allow the Western Hills Viaduct to remain. 

 

One simple solution I can think of is keeping local traffic on the Western Hills Viaduct but build a new separate bridge just for I-75 in line with Queen City.  This would sharply reduce traffic on the old viaduct and allow it to be restriped with bike lanes and/or streetcar/light rail.  In its original configuration, streetcars traveled on the lower deck and presumably still could.   

 

 

 

    Something that caught my attention was the fact that the Central Parkway Subway, the lower deck of the Western Hills Viaduct, and the former C&O right of way to Western Hills come so close to lining up. The ramp that streetcars used to get out of the west end of the Viaduct is still there.

 

    Would it be possible to connect them with light rail to make a continuous corridor from Downtown to near Cheviot? I-75 of course is in the way. It looks like it might be possible to cross, with the light rail below I-75, if the light rail were allowed to cross Spring Grove at grade. If the ramps to I-75 were removed, it would not only solve a safety problem and reduce automobile traffic on the lower deck, but would also open up the view of the arch.

 

    I don't expect it to happen; after all, the city was offered the opportunity to purchase the C&O right of way before it was sold to developers and fragmented, but it's fun to dream and draw lines on maps.

 

   

What is the latest cost estimate of the Brent Spence Bridge replacement(/supplement?)  $2-3 billion?

Bridge to costs states $160 million

By Patrick Crowley, Kentucky Post, September 6, 2009

 

FORT MITCHELL - As design of a rebuilt Interstate 75/71 Brent Spence Bridge continues, state officials in Ohio and Kentucky will be pressed to come up with $160 million over the next six years to help pay for the $2 billion project.

 

"That's the tough question," Rob Hans, chief district engineer for the Kentucky Department of Highways District 6, told Northern Kentucky statehouse and county officials during a road project briefing here last week.

That figure actually sounds pretty reasonable, given the nature and scope of the project.

It's more than reasonable; it pretty much takes away the necessity of tolling, unless the budget deficits of both states makes it unaffordable.

Here is what I wrote in my article on the bridge, based on previous estimates:

 

"It was estimated that Kentucky and Ohio would need to chip in $600 million each, with the federal government covering the remainder."

 

What they are being asked to do now is a STEAL.

Ir will easily be done by raising the gas tax a nickle and adding a $10 surcharge on drivers license and a $15-30 charge on license plates.

City studies reviving neighborhoods

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 11, 2009

 

Hoping to use the $2 billion-plus Brent Spence Bridge project and others as catalysts, the city of Cincinnati has launched an ambitious study aimed at finding ways to capitalize on those plans to enhance neighborhoods along the Interstate 75 corridor.

 

Under the Revive I-75 plan, city officials and consultants will spend the next five months examining strategies for expanding economic development, promoting "walkable" neighborhoods with homes near to jobs, recreation and retail, and incorporating "green" development concepts in communities stretching from Downtown to the area near Spring Grove Village and St. Bernard.

^The best thing that these planners could do to revive these neighborhoods is 1) make the footprint of the highway and its exit as small and thin as possible; and 2) eliminate as many exits as possible.  But I doubt either of those things will happen.

No, the exact opposite will happen. The whole thing is being widened, not just for an additional lane, but for widened emergency lanes on the shoulder and along the center barrier. This is all such a joke. 

^The best thing that these planners could do to revive these neighborhoods is 1) make the footprint of the highway and its exit as small and thin as possible; and 2) eliminate as many exits as possible. But I doubt either of those things will happen.

 

In the plans that have been set forth by ODOT with the preferred alignment, most of the interchanges south of the Western Hills viaduct will be consolidated into two interchanges with extensive collector/distributor lanes. This prevents weaving issues that compound congestion, and takes local traffic off of Interstate 75.

 

As for the footprint, Interstate 75 will be all but removed from Exit 1F (Freeman) to Exit 1C/D (Interstate 71, etc.), which will be shifted westward to Queensgate. The footprint will be approximately the same, although it opens up the western fringe of downtown to new development.

City studies reviving neighborhoods

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 11, 2009

 

Hoping to use the $2 billion-plus Brent Spence Bridge project and others as catalysts, the city of Cincinnati has launched an ambitious study aimed at finding ways to capitalize on those plans to enhance neighborhoods along the Interstate 75 corridor.

 

Under the Revive I-75 plan, city officials and consultants will spend the next five months examining strategies for expanding economic development, promoting "walkable" neighborhoods with homes near to jobs, recreation and retail, and incorporating "green" development concepts in communities stretching from Downtown to the area near Spring Grove Village and St. Bernard.

 

Is there any reason to attend this meeting or is ODOT going to do whatever they want anyway?

Public hearing 6-8 p.m. Thursday at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College.

 

I'm going to go, only because I have a strong interest in the Interstate 75 widening project and the Brent Spence Bridge supplementary span. I'm not sure how ODOT is going to approach this, but if it is what they just said at the Innerbelt meeting in Columbus... I'm not holding my breath.

I like Option 2, although I'd like all the options a lot better if they weren't crammed up next to the existing Brent Spence. I worry that such an approach will create another C&O/Clade Wade Bailey visual mash-up.

Really a shame we can't post the images. I'm partial to ". . . a cable-stayed bridge with one main vertical support tower near the Ohio side of the river." It looks really dramatic. Though I prefer the bridge doesn't get painted white. I guess it's too late to lose the Brent Spense altogether.

 

www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com doesn't even have the images up yet.

Well, if it's any consolation, the new span will likely outlast the original Brent Spence by at least a few decades.

 

I'd be okay with the arch design if Cincinnati didn't already have an elegant tied arch bridge to the east... I'm not sure the "bookends" argument really works, since the bridges wouldn't be identical and most people wouldn't be seeing both bridges in the same view anyway.

 

Issues with the adjacent Brent Spence bridge aside, I think a modern cable-stayed bridge would be the perfect compliment to the Roebling Suspension Bridge. Additionally, I've always liked the variety of Cincinnati's bridges, and adding a modern cable-stayed bridge would add more flavor to the mix.

I like the arch design since it would provide a nice balance to the span of bridges we have and offer a bookend to the "Big Mac" bridge to the east.  The arch design also doesn't come across as trying to hard to be iconic like the others do.

 

With that said, I think option six with the single tower has potential too and doesn't give me the tired feeling of the other cable stayed designs.

For everyone's viewing pleasure:

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

 

6.

Looks like whatever option they pick will dwarf the hell out of all the other bridges in the city.

I can't help but laugh that the cost to just build the new bridge is 5 times more than the intial amount that is planned on being spent for 3C. That doesn't even include the money that will be spent retrofitting Brent Spence and the other I-75 improvements through Cincinnati.

 

Well I won't name names, but one of the projects is being built to modern standards, while the other is being built to mid-20th Century standards.

I've seen one too many cable-stayed variants go up along the Ohio but there are really none between Cincinnati and Covington. An arch is great, but I am really more fond of the tied arch used in Parkersburg.

 

I'm not sure it has to be visually exciting, since it will abut the cantilever Brent Spence.

It's too bad 90% of everyone will be viewing this new bridge from the exact opposite angle and will thus have much of the new bridge blocked by the hideous debris left over from the existing Brent Spence Bridge.

For everyone's viewing pleasure:

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

 

6.

 

1 is too much like Big Mac which isn't bad if you think of it as capping off the bridge section of the river as a sort of bookend.

 

3>2

 

5>4

 

6 probably makes the biggest statement but 3 might be cooler longer b/c of the symmetry and angles.

 

 

There are still 60 years of serviceable life within the Brent Spence Bridge, so we all better get used to seeing this contrast :(

Options 2-6 are so much taller than the Brent Spence that they may standout despite the fact that they will rub up against the BS.  That is why I favor option 6.  That thing is so damn tall that it would be able to be seen fairly clearly from the East.

#1. 

My preferences, in order from most favored to least favored:

 

#2: Iconic, well-proportioned, compliments the Roebling Bridge nicely. See my comments above.

#3: Similar to #2, but the towers are a little clunky below the deck.

#1: Elegant, but the arch thing has already been done nearby.

#6: That would certainly make a statement, and be a commanding presence on the skyline. Probably a bit too big, though.

#4: Meh. That conventional cable-stayed design has already been done about a hundred times elsewhere.

#5: Meh. See #4.

 

It's interesting to see that all the designs (save for #6) show a center median that would occur on both levels, creating four separate roadways. Since the old Brent Spence would be carrying I-71, I'm guessing they plan to split I-75 so that each level of the bridge is carrying bi-directional traffic, and probably restrict trucks to the upper level. This is a similar configuration as the George Washington Bridge and Verazzano Narrows Bridge in NYC.

 

Any word on wether the new span is supposed to include a right-of-way for light rail, or will any light rail line be crossing via the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge?

^The plan is to split Interstate 71 and 75 traffic in Kentucky near the 12th Street interchange, so that northbound traffic on both interstates would use the lower decks of the respective spans, and southbound on the upper decks. There would be no restrictions since both spans feature adequate height clearances. There is no provision or inclusion of light rail on the new bridge, nor on the Clay Wade Bailey -- the latter wasn't designed for that, nor does it have room for that :(

I like #2 above (which is actually named Option 9) and #6 (which is actually named Option 12)

^The plan is to split Interstate 71 and 75 traffic in Kentucky near the 12th Street interchange, so that northbound traffic on both interstates would use the lower decks of the respective spans, and southbound on the upper decks. There would be no restrictions since both spans feature adequate height clearances. There is no provision or inclusion of light rail on the new bridge, nor on the Clay Wade Bailey -- the latter wasn't designed for that, nor does it have room for that :(

 

I'm aware of the plan to split I-71 and I-75 south of the river. In looking at the renderings, though, it also appears as if both the upper and lower decks of the new span are split into separate roadways.

 

Regarding the truck restrictions on the lower level, the issue isn't so much about clearances as it is with the risk of a hazmat or terrorist incident. A major incident such as an explosion or fire happening in the confined space of the lower level would be far more destructive than if it were to happen on the upper level. Splitting the traffic in each direction onto upper and lower levels also provides some flexibility in terms of traffic management: If a severe accident or traffic back-up blocks one level, then electronic message displays can direct traffic onto the other level.

 

Shame about the light rail... So if we ever want to build a light rail line to CVG Airport, then we're pretty much forced to build a new river crossing. Between the I-75 project's lack of a provision for a fourth main into Union Terminal and the new bridge's lack of a provision for light rail -- despite the relative ease of incorporating rail provisions into each project -- you'd almost think the people designing these multibillion-dollar highway projects were going out of their way to kill the possibility of passenger rail service in Cincinnati.

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/02/brent-spence-bridge-replacement-designs.html

6.

 

How tall would this tower be?  Would it appear taller than Queen City Square?

Only if it has a web-cam.  :-D

The single tower option would be enormous.  The drawings have it at 524' from the average river level to the top of the tower.

I'm guessing it will be somewhere between the height of the tiara and Carew's flagpole. :D

 

The single tower option would be enormous. The drawings have it at 524' from the average river level to the top of the tower.

For that reason alone, that should be picked IMO.

 

At 524ft that makes it about 160m which is just slightly taller than PNC Tower: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=150

Is the map on the Revive 75 homepage the official reconfiguration of the new bridge and Brent Spence approaches? I really hope so. Getting rid of that cluster#@!% of interchanges west of Central Avenue, simplifying it, and opening up additional continuous land to DT would be absolutely sweet.

 

I'm not sure.  I'm going to be contacting some project officials in the next day or so and will ask at that time where the approach designs currently stand.  The design shown in the UDA illustration is basically the approach I suggested a couple years ago.  It will effectively expand the scope of Downtown by a dozen or so blocks and would relieve the urban core of that massive choke point.

 

For those who haven't seen the illustration we're talking about you can view it here:

http://www.revivei-75cincinnati.com/docs/Regional_Plan.pdf

6.

 

How tall would this tower be? Would it appear taller than Queen City Square?

 

Depends on where you count from, if you count the underwater portion, or perhaps the footings, then it may appear to be taller.  Also depends on if they put a flag pole up top.

After further examination I don't think that the UDA illustrations are accurate. These official bridge designs show the new bridge on the east side of Longworth Hall and adjacent to the existing Brent Spence Bridge, whereas the illustrations by UDA show the new bridge crossing the river west of Longworth Hall.

I can't help but laugh that the cost to just build the new bridge is 5 times more than the intial amount that is planned on being spent for 3C. That doesn't even include the money that will be spent retrofitting Brent Spence and the other I-75 improvements through Cincinnati.

 

Well I won't name names, but one of the projects is being built to modern standards, while the other is being built to mid-20th Century standards.

 

Only because we live in a society that values highway bridges more than transit.

Bummer that would've been real exciting.

 

EDIT: Just went through the proposed approach alternatives and of the 7 that remained, 4 were labeled as 'Not Recommended'. The aforementioned approach on the far side of Longfellow, which was featured in 2 different proposals, were both on the list of non-recommendation.

 

Judging by the fact that the new bridge is proposed to be double decked with both highways and Brent Spence reverted to local traffic, it looks like Alternative E is what they chose.

 

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/alternatives/Alternatives-Conceptual5.html

 

Interesting stuff. I had assumed the old Brent Spence would carry I-71 while the new span would be solely dedicated to I-75. However, this scheme shows the new bridge carrying both interstates while the old Brent Spence carries local street traffic. If that's indeed the case, then there's at least some hope that the old Brent Spence could potentially be adapted to carry light rail and/or streetcar tracks. (I doubt weight would be a factor, as I can't imagine light rail vehicles and streetcars could put the bridge through any more of a pounding than it already receives from interstate truck traffic today. Might be a different story if it were a suspension bridge, but that's not the case.)

 

Alternately, I note that in the section drawing in that link, the northbound upper level shows a gap just to the right of the centerline that doesn't have a function assigned to it. (Northbound I-71 is only shown as two lines wide, while southbound I-71 is shown as three lanes.) Could that be a provision for a light rail ROW? Sure would be nice.

 

While Alternate E doesn't open up as much space west of downtown as the scheme shown in Randy's link, it still opens a bit. The one in Randy's link would be ideal, though.

^ In that case, disregard my previous post.

 

That said, all the schemes are pretty consistent in showing the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge being used for light rail. Since the new Brent Spence configuration includes provisions for local street traffic, maybe nobody will miss losing the CWB for automobile use, especially since it's already significantly under-utilized.

With regard to the CWB, I personally have used it once in the last 6 years. Whenever I go to Newport, I used the Taylor-Southgate Bridge and whenever I go to Covington, I use the Suspension Bridge. The CWB is inconveniently located, but I would seem to be in a perfect location for lightrail crossing.

CWB would be good for light rail and/or streetcars.  It doesn't land in the best area on the Cincinnati side, but it's still just a block or two from the edge of downtown.  On the Covington side it dumps perfectly on to Main Street.  With the bridge being 3 lanes wide, you could take two lanes for rail traffic and leave the third for pedestrians and bicycles.  Right now this is the only bridge that's usable for bicycles to get to Covington, so that would need to be considered.  If the Brent Spence is retooled for local traffic, I'm sure bikes and pedestrians could be accommodated there too, but it's farther into no-man's land than the CWB so I doubt there'd be as much use for non-car facilities there.