Anyone following Chris "The Heavy" Christie lane shutdown drama on the George Washington Bridge? Not surprised. I thought this aerial shot showing the tolls could be close to what they would look like here.

 

But there won't be any toll booths.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/brent-spence-bridge-could-project-already-be-dead-in-kentucky-general-assemblys-2014-session

I have to echo Jake's earlier point that maybe, just maybe, the project is simply too big.  If something is too big and expensive, then you look for ways to scale it back.  This all-or-nothing mentality, or the idea that "we have to start building SOMETHING now now now," smells like a handout to highway building contractors.  It's a desperate attempt to keep the sprawl machine chugging along by any means necessary, even if it bankrupts us. 

For the sake of any logistics, transportation, or distribution industries in the entire tri-state region this needs to happen. And KY needs to foot at least 3/4 of the bill, somehow.

 

I'm just as against sprawl as anyone, but the bridge is outdated and needs to be replaced. This area can't keep pleading poverty all the time. Either invest in infrastructure or die. End of story.

I'm just as against sprawl as anyone, but the bridge is outdated and needs to be replaced. This area can't keep pleading poverty all the time. Either invest in infrastructure or die. End of story.

 

The bridge is not being replaced. A second (new) bridge is being built beside it.

The Brent Spence Bridge is going to live to be 100. 

I'm just as against sprawl as anyone, but the bridge is outdated and needs to be replaced. This area can't keep pleading poverty all the time. Either invest in infrastructure or die. End of story.

 

The bridge is not being replaced. A second (new) bridge is being built beside it.

 

Ah. I have not been following this issue closely enough - I just thought they were going to build a new bridge next to the Brent Spence for the sole purpose of not interrupting the traffic flow once they would demolish the Brent Spence.

 

In that case why do they need another bridge if the Daniel Carter Beard is under capacity right now? Seems like the easy solution is to just toll the Brent Spence and not build a new bridge - discourage people from taking the easy route, and make them take the difficult route instead.

For the sake of any logistics, transportation, or distribution industries in the entire tri-state region this needs to happen. And KY needs to foot at least 3/4 of the bill, somehow.

If it's profitable, the private sector should pay for it.

The Brent Spence Bridge is going to live to be 100. 

 

It’s amazing how many people think the Brent Spence is in some kind of imminent danger of collapse, despite the fact that every railroad bridge in the city is much older and in fine condition. I blame the media, and not just the Enquirer and WLW in this case; the bridge collapse in MN years ago was huge national news, and was coupled with the lists and websites showing thousands of “deficient” bridges throughout the country. Basically, the Brent Spence having 10’ lanes has led everyone to believe it’s going to collapse. 

In that case why do they need another bridge if the Daniel Carter Beard is under capacity right now? Seems like the easy solution is to just toll the Brent Spence and not build a new bridge - discourage people from taking the easy route, and make them take the difficult route instead.

 

Exactly!  The problem is that the people in the KY suburbs want traffic relief but do not want tolls.  They don't really care about the spending for a new bridge, as long as it doesn't impact them directly.  You could probably remove the need for a new bridge entirely by tolling the existing bridge, but if you can't get tolls implemented in the first place, you're just stuck with the current situation.

 

 

It's too bad that they can't/won't toll the current bridge and use the money to build a light rail line that runs from Florence/CVG to Downtown with a fare that is purposefully made cheaper than the toll.  Most Kentuckians hate sitting in the bridge traffic anyway, and many would welcome the ability to bypass it.  That would remove traffic from the bridge both from those that don't want to pay the toll and those that didn't want to make the drive in the first place.  But again, you can't get the tolls enacted so it's a non-starter.

They didn't think the Minnesota bridge would collapse and it did. All it takes and one small earthquake to rock a certain way and it can weaken the bridge.

The I-35W bridge was a particular type of highly efficient but also non-redundant structure that's susceptible to failure when particular pieces fail (fracture critical).  Some of the specific fracture critical gusset plates that were used to bolt together different beams and girders were determined to be significantly undersized for the design load, and the actual loading of the bridge has increased over time beyond the original design specifications.  There were known problems with the I-35W bridge such as stress cracks and significant corrosion on structural members.  The bridge had a structural rating of 50/100 well before the collapse, one of the worst in the state.  An aggressive de-icing system used to prevent black ice is also suspected as accelerating corrosion of structural steel.  The bridge was loaded with nearly 300 tons of construction supplies and equipment for deck resurfacing, and an additional two inches of concrete had been added to the deck, increasing the dead load by 20%. 

 

The I-71 Jeremiah Morrow Bridge over the Little Miami River is the same kind of fracture critical under truss design, and it's being replaced as we speak.  Other bridges have had new gusset plates installed, and they are being more frequently inspected.  Other than increased load, I do not believe any of these conditions apply to the Brent Spence Bridge.

^And from what I have heard the Brent Spence is capable of holding its current load, it just handles traffic inefficiently now. It isn't being overloaded by any means. I don't have the numbers, but I've never heard that the bridge is over its weight limit. And I'm sure we would have heard about this since the Build Our New Bridge Now group's main goal is to scare people into building a new bridge.

It's the fine line between functional and structurally deficient.  Which I'm sure we all understand or has been covered here. 

 

The Roebling is an example of structurally deficient.

It's the fine line between functional and structurally deficient.  Which I'm sure we all understand or has been covered here. 

 

The Roebling is an example of structurally deficient.

 

I don't think it's a fine line, it's an entirely different animal.  Of course the lobbyists love the phrase "functionally obsolete", since the press is always in a hurry to stress the phrase without giving an explanation as to what it means. 

 

 

People seem happier in functionally obsolete areas.

It's the fine line between functional and structurally deficient.  Which I'm sure we all understand or has been covered here. 

 

The Roebling is an example of structurally deficient.

 

I don't think it's a fine line, it's an entirely different animal.  Of course the lobbyists love the phrase "functionally obsolete", since the press is always in a hurry to stress the phrase without giving an explanation as to what it means. 

 

 

 

"Functionally Obsolete" "Structurally deficient"...all buzzwords meant to do one thing: Spend more money on roads, whether actually needed or not. What do these terms really mean? Who uses these terms and what do they have to gain? What about the media, which reflexively reports these statements a gospel? Where is the investigative reporting to verify these statements?

 

These terms are nothing but propaganda meant to ensure that more roads get built, benefiting highway contractors.

 

It's the fine line between functional and structurally deficient.  Which I'm sure we all understand or has been covered here. 

 

The Roebling is an example of structurally deficient.

 

I don't think it's a fine line, it's an entirely different animal.  Of course the lobbyists love the phrase "functionally obsolete", since the press is always in a hurry to stress the phrase without giving an explanation as to what it means.

 

And there it is.  You and I know that they are clearly different.  It's obvious the public doesn't.  Otherwise the press voiding take advantage of it.  I suppose that's what I meant by "fine line". 

^^There is nothing wrong with the terms. The problem happens when the media fails to identify what about a bridge is functionally or structurally obsolete. The Brent Spence Bridge is largely obsolete because there is not enough room to merge lanes and there are no emergency lanes. The media just says "functionally obsolete" or simply "obsolete" and people assume the bridge is going to collapse. I think a lot of elected officials misunderstand the terms too, which doesn't help us implement proper policy or spending.

 

As a profession civil engineers/transportation engineers must be able to classify different problems. Those terms are how they do that. Otherwise it would all be subjective (which would be far worse).

 

It's the fine line between functional and structurally deficient.  Which I'm sure we all understand or has been covered here. 

 

The Roebling is an example of structurally deficient.

 

I don't think it's a fine line, it's an entirely different animal.  Of course the lobbyists love the phrase "functionally obsolete", since the press is always in a hurry to stress the phrase without giving an explanation as to what it means. 

 

 

 

"Functionally Obsolete" "Structurally deficient"...all buzzwords meant to do one thing: Spend more money on roads, whether actually needed or not. What do these terms really mean? Who uses these terms and what do they have to gain? What about the media, which reflexively reports these statements a gospel? Where is the investigative reporting to verify these statements?

 

These terms are nothing but propaganda meant to ensure that more roads get built, benefiting highway contractors.

 

We are wandering OT but I kind of disagree.  No doubt I hear what you are saying.  But it is a certainty that all of the bridges we have built will deteriorate.  They will need repair to remain safe.  There is a specific rating system for bridges that is useful and probably more so than the terms above.  I'm sure the best engineering AND legal minds are on the case since at the end of the day if a bridge falls someone could be killed.  Maybe.

The bridge rating system refers to structural soundness (or deficiency).  You can have a bridge with a structural score of 100 still be functionally obsolete because the lanes are too narrow, there's insufficient guard rails, height clearance issues, or whatever.  Basically all functionally obsolete means is that it doesn't meet current design standards for roadway geometry or capacity.  It's important to make the distinction between functionally obsolete and structurally deficient, and the media definitely does not do that, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to use the terms. 

Why did they approve I-69? I think that taking alot of money away from the BSB. Will I-69 be towed? I-69 is the NAFTA highway.

The media does not do that...

 

Around 1999 the Enquirer reported that the bridge was going to fall down within 12 years if nothing was done. I think they cited some technical report, but misinterpreted it. For several years after that, the mistake was repeated, and the Enquirer continued to report that the bridge would fall down.

 

 

The George Washington Bridge is about 40 years older than the Brent Spence Bridge.  Somehow the Brent Spence's collapse is imminent, but not the much older bridge built with was was likely cruder steel. 

The I-35W bridge was a particular type of highly efficient but also non-redundant structure that's susceptible to failure when particular pieces fail (fracture critical).  Some of the specific fracture critical gusset plates that were used to bolt together different beams and girders were determined to be significantly undersized for the design load, and the actual loading of the bridge has increased over time beyond the original design specifications.  There were known problems with the I-35W bridge such as stress cracks and significant corrosion on structural members.  The bridge had a structural rating of 50/100 well before the collapse, one of the worst in the state.  An aggressive de-icing system used to prevent black ice is also suspected as accelerating corrosion of structural steel.  The bridge was loaded with nearly 300 tons of construction supplies and equipment for deck resurfacing, and an additional two inches of concrete had been added to the deck, increasing the dead load by 20%. 

 

The I-71 Jeremiah Morrow Bridge over the Little Miami River is the same kind of fracture critical under truss design, and it's being replaced as we speak.  Other bridges have had new gusset plates installed, and they are being more frequently inspected.  Other than increased load, I do not believe any of these conditions apply to the Brent Spence Bridge.

BTW, The steel pier caps (visible when you use the lower deck) on the approaches to the BSB are fracture critical members, although not of the gusset plate design

For fun, take a drive along Augusta Street (IIRC) and look at the condition of the BSB piers.  Exposed 50 year old rebar.

I remember driving to Buffalo, New Jersey, and New York in the 80s and seeing the overpasses, bridges, and retaining walls in decrepit cosmetic condition. They're all still there.

^Infrastructure in those places takes a real beating from the weather and de-icing salts.

The recent value for money study conducted by ODOT and KYTC estimated diversion of up to 70,000 vehicles if a $2 toll was imposed.  If that level of diversion is real and would be sustained the additional capacity provided the new I-75 bridge would not be necessary.  Also it has not been made clear at this point what may be needed at other river crossings to accommodate the diverted volumes and how this would be funded and who would be responsible.

First, it's not necessary to toll the bridge full time. It could be tolled at peak periods and remain free the rest of the time. Some of the traffic could be diverted from the peak to the off-peak periods.

 

Second, it should not be assumed that the 70,000 vehicles will simply be diverted to another bridge. Chances are that some will be diverted to other bridges, and some of that traffic will just disappear. When people have to pay a toll, they will think twice about making the trip. Lots of marginal trips will simply not be taken.

 

Incidentally, in the planning phases before Fort Washington Way was reconstructed, a study found that a significant amount of traffic on Fort Washington Way was using the highway to get between Covington and Newport - crossing the Ohio River twice - because it was easier than crossing the Licking River. 

ODOT doesn't acknowledge the difference between peak and off-peak. Everything is peak all the time in this state.

Incidentally, in the planning phases before Fort Washington Way was reconstructed, a study found that a significant amount of traffic on Fort Washington Way was using the highway to get between Covington and Newport - crossing the Ohio River twice - because it was easier than crossing the Licking River. 

 

This is completely true. I do this all the time, because it's a lot faster than dealing with traffic lights. It's also a much quicker route from Newport to Florence or the airport than taking 471 south to 275, so there are a ton of people who use it for those trips as well. If there were a toll, I would take another route, but in the mean time, there's no reason not two make two bridge crossings to save 5 minutes.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140124/NEWS010802/301240102/Grimes-No-bridge-tolls-vague-source-money?nclick_check=1

 

 

 

I really think they need to do a full package deal with all the effected counties along the major transportation routes. Maybe an across the board sale tax increase to help rebuild the new bridge and up date the whole system including light rail. Maybe 1 and a half percent across the board. That still smaller than Tennessee sales taxes.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140124/NEWS010802/301240102/Grimes-No-bridge-tolls-vague-source-money?nclick_check=1

 

 

 

I really think they need to do a full package deal with all the effected counties along the major transportation routes. Maybe an across the board sale tax increase to help rebuild the new bridge and up date the whole system including light rail. Maybe 1 and a half percent across the board. That still smaller than Tennessee sales taxes.

 

More fear mongering... “We can’t put a price tag on the human lives that are at stake, because we don’t have the federal funding we need for this vital Kentucky project.” Sigh.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140124/NEWS010802/301240102/Grimes-No-bridge-tolls-vague-source-money?nclick_check=1

 

 

 

I really think they need to do a full package deal with all the effected counties along the major transportation routes. Maybe an across the board sale tax increase to help rebuild the new bridge and up date the whole system including light rail. Maybe 1 and a half percent across the board. That still smaller than Tennessee sales taxes.

 

True- but remember, Tenn has no income tax on wages, only on interest and dividend income.  They can support the higher sales taxes this way. It's hard to make higher sales taxes fly here.

Sales tax statewide went up .25% in September then Franklin County added another half percent. We are now at 7.5% here. BARF

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140124/NEWS010802/301240102/Grimes-No-bridge-tolls-vague-source-money?nclick_check=1

 

 

More fear mongering... “We can’t put a price tag on the human lives that are at stake, because we don’t have the federal funding we need for this vital Kentucky project.” Sigh.

fear mongering & empty promises...

but she's better looking than McConnell

Sales tax statewide went up .25% in September then Franklin County added another half percent. We are now at 7.5% here. BARF

 

Every local tax is higher in Columbus than in Cincinnati -- earnings tax, sales tax, property tax.  Cincinnati is lucky to have the railroad income and the Fortune 500 wages to tax, it keeps the rates down on everyone else. 

Property taxes on commercial real estate in Columbus are REDONKULUS! That's one reason there's so many dead or slow strip malls up here. You pay mall rent for decent strip mall space.

$100M so far and still no bridge

Jason Williams;and Scott Wartman 8:35 a.m. EST March 7, 2014

 

The stalemate continues as the price tag grows: Taxpayers have spent more than $100 million on plans for a new Brent Spence Bridge, but there's still no funding plan or start date in sight.

 

It might be years – possibly decades – before the project gets done.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/03/06/brent-spence-bridge-gridlock-costly/6148573/

Wow and not a hole has been dug. Does that  include the moving of the utilities?

700 WLW still misreporting that the existing bridge will be replaced.  For the 999th time, it's being kept and a new bridge is being built next to it. 

$100 million is basically full engineering fees for a $1 billion project.  I sure hope they've got more than some cheesy renderings and pixellated plan views for that. 

A $6.50 toll is steep!!!

 

http://blockedbythebridge.com/kentucky-transportation-cabinet-secretary-mike-hancock-dispels-rumors-of-6-50-tolls/

Looks as if the project will be pushed back another couple of years since the Kentucky legislature will not get on board with the tolling provisions.  Seems that ODOT should look at what can be done on the Ohio side like it was planning to do a few years ago in phases while Kentucky catches up.  I think you could build most of the I-75 project north of 9th Street without affecting FWW or the Ohio River Bridge.    Also wonder if the delay will allow the City's replacement of the Western Hills Viaduct to be tied into the work on I-75.

Having this project get pushed back a few years is the best possible thing that can happen. Traffic levels will continue to stagnate or grow very slowly, in contrast to the exponential growth that OKI and ODOT are predicting. In the end, maybe we'll end up with a much smaller new bridge instead of a $4 billion mega-bridge.

^ They'll just say "see, we're blocked by the bridge!  It's choking off growth.  Prosperity comes from more lane-miles."

They need to re-examine the entire project and its not just because VMT's are declining. Since dunnhumby is relocating that building at Central and 3rd can now be demolished meaning the ramps can be tightened to further narrow the highway's bloated footprint on the western edge of downtown.

The western hills viaduct is a state and city project. You won't get much federal funds for that. That once 60 million project is now 200 million.

 

That dumnhumby building is a perfectly good building. It would take about 30 million to buy that to just tear it down.