I looked through past enquirer articles about the BSB yesterday. Here are some of the stats that were reported.

 

Cost

 

2001- 500m

2003- over 500m

2005- 750m

2011- 2.4b

2012- 2.4b

2012- 2.5b

2013- 2.47b

2014- 2.6b

 

Current Traffic

 

2000- 137,00

2001- 140,000

2003- 140,000

2005- 172,000 (note this was a story published in 2014 quoting a 2005 study)

2008- 150,000

2012- 175,000

2012- 175,000

2013- 161,000 (note this was from a northern kentucky chamber of commerce report from 2014)

 

Projected Traffic

 

2001- 180-190,000 in 2030

2002- 180,000 in 2030

2003- 182,000 in 2020

2005- 200,000 in 2025

2008- 200,000 in 2025

Thanks, that's great info. If it's not too much trouble to add citations, I would email it to some friends and family members. (And I encourage others on UO to consider doing the same.) If people are informed about how these things go, they will not be so susceptible to sensationalism regarding the streetcar, rail transit in general, or even bike lanes.

KY 2008: 158,805 via http://transportation.ky.gov/planning/pages/count-maps.aspx

OH 2009: 172,000 (149,970 pass. cars and A class trucks, 22,030 B&C class trucks) via http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/traffic/Traffic_Survey_Reports/2009_Reports/HAM09.PDF

 

I'm not sure whee the 2012, 2013 and 2014 figures are from.

2013- 161,000 http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/12/22/beshear-brent-spence-project-delay-will-cost-7.html

Why OKI says trucks can't be routed around the Brent Spence Bridge

Jan 6, 2015, 1:02pm EST

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Just divert out-of-town truck traffic to Interstate 275 and around the Brent Spence Bridge.

 

It's a suggestion I get a lot while writing about the $2.6 billion Brent Spence Bridge project, which includes highway widening on both sides of the river and a second bridge that will sit next to the current one.

 

The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments looked at the idea in 2007 after Covington's mayor requested a study. OKI's conclusion was that while a truck ban would help traffic on the bridge, it would make it worse elsewhere.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/01/why-oki-says-trucks-cant-be-routed-around-the.html

^I don't expect this to happen, but a more economically efficient ban would probably be to ban cars on the Brent Spence Bridge and make I-75 for trucks only.

No need to ban anything. Just implement tolls on the existing BSB and Big Mac Bridge. Cars and trucks will pay to cross the river if it's worth it to them. Some cars will switch to the local bridges. Some trucks will find other routes. Some people might even (gasp!) decide it's better to take transit across the river.

No need to ban anything. Just implement tolls on the existing BSB and Big Mac Bridge. Cars and trucks will pay to cross the river if it's worth it to them. Some cars will switch to the local bridges. Some trucks will find other routes. Some people might even (gasp!) decide it's better to take transit across the river.

 

I don't think that can done without an act of Congress.  Yes the President would actually have to sign into law legislation permitting the tolling of existing interstate highway infrastructure. 

Ky has some balls. They want Ohio to pay of have that is 100% owned by Ky. lol

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/01/10/comer-ticket-reconsider-brent-spence-plan/21521843/

 

Stuff like this proposal is why it takes decades and decades to even start.

From the article:

McDaniel said that the bridge decision should also include potential impacts on commercial development and that it is a "60-70 year decision, not just for the next three to five years."

 

"We should be looking to get the biggest bang that we can out of this ... so why not look at going through areas such as Newtown in Ohio?" he asked. "There is less and less developable land through the I-75 corridor. Why not use this as an opportunity to open up more development? It seems as if there was a foregone conclusion that this would be the site without enough examination of other options."

 

So they are planning on combining the new Brent Spence with the Eastern Corridor into one Super-Boondoggle?

Or maybe there is a chance for something multi-modal.

No here we're once again seeing the sleazy characters who dominated NKY's affairs using public sentiment to try to shift funding to their long-dreamed sprawl blob south of I-275.  For decades they've been trying to get a 20-mile extension of I-471 south into Campbell and Kenton Counties.  I-471 would be completely renamed I-71 and would in theory divert I-71's thru traffic from the Brent Spence Bridge.  Except it won't work that way because there is no such thing as thru I-71 traffic.  Almost nobody who is on I-71 north is heading to Columbus. They're as likely headed to Dayton, but most likely headed for...Cincinnati. 

Wouldn't a simple traffic study reveal that and scuttle the idea?  This new i71 would be a horrible idea.  Any chance that the Ludlow Bromley crossing cold be resurrected?

The tolls are coming. The tolls are coming.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/27/kasich-beshear-brent-spence/22394885/

Ohio and Kentucky "splitting the cost of the bridge" is a meaningless statement, since they would just be issuing bonds that would be paid back with toll revenue. So, if it's true that more Kentuckians use the bridge than Ohioans, Kentucky drivers would still be paying more (as they should). But I bet quite a few people will fall for this statement.

 

It will also be interesting to see what "reducing the scope" of the bridge really means. I highly doubt that the bridge itself will be downsized.

I found this to be the most hopeful part of the article:

 

Beshear will be term-limited out of office at the end of this year, and Kentucky's next governor might let the project go dormant if the General Assembly doesn't make any progress toward paying for the new bridge this year.

How much more expensive was the bridge with suspension on it?  I remember seeing something on here or maybe it was UrbanCincy, showing the different designs and they of course went with the most bland, because of costs reasons.

 

I would be nice if they end up building this bridge that it could be somewhat iconic, not just a humungous concrete span.

 

Edit:  I found the article on UrbanCincy.  They eliminated the single tower stay cable bridge, but not the double tower stay or the arch bridge.

 

I vote for the double tower stay, but definitely would have preferred the single tower stay.  That would really reach up into the sky and been iconic.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2013/06/design-options-for-2-7b-brent-spence-bridge-project-narrowed/

 

 

 

How many icons do we need? We can't even afford to maintain those we already have.

And that is because we refuse to pay for anything, whether it be infrastructure, or wars.

In regards to icons, yes, we can't afford all the icons we already have.  But I doubt the state DOT in Ohio and Kentucky, the Federal Government, and tolls are going to pay to take care of all the icons we have in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.  The single tower stayed bridge was actually less expensive than the two tower stayed bridge, but they eliminated due to safety concerns.  I am sure we will end up with a huge arch bridge, if this gets built.  I guess we find out more today from the big bosses of Ohio and Kentucky.

And all of it is kind of moot since with the old bridge remaining this new bridge will only really be viewable from downstream on KY-8 (there's not really a good vantage point on the Ohio side of the river). 

In regards to icons, yes, we can't afford all the icons we already have.  But I doubt the state DOT in Ohio and Kentucky, the Federal Government, and tolls are going to pay to take care of all the icons we have in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.  The single tower stayed bridge was actually less expensive than the two tower stayed bridge, but they eliminated due to safety concerns.  I am sure we will end up with a huge arch bridge, if this gets built.  I guess we find out more today from the big bosses of Ohio and Kentucky.

 

Exactly. 

 

What are they going to do with the old Brent Spence when the new bridge is built?

Rehabilitate the span for three lanes of traffic in each direction.

The new bridge should be built aesthetically pleasing, not just the bare minimum boring design.  Yes, the new bridge will not be visible from downtown because the current bridge is in the way. However, even after being rehabbed, the 1963 bridge will probably not last more than another 50 years before needing to be replaced. Hopefully, at that point, we would be able to remove the 1963 bridge and the new bridge would be able to handle all of the interstate traffic at that point. (I can dream, can't I?)

I see lots of people on Facebook suggesting that Ohio should pay 70% of the cost.  (These are folks who are anti-toll and post to the Cincinnati Politics group.)  What is the basis of this?  Just that Cincinnati is 70% of the population?  As I understand it, the bridge is used far more by people in NKY than in Ohio.

 

If we are going to suggest a regional funding mechanism of some sort, I am fine with that--as long as we get people elsewhere to pay for things like mass transit and the stadiums. 

The percentage by State DOT does not really matter in the end since vast majority of funding would be via tolls paid by users where ever they reside as well as federal highway funds.  Since they are still value engineering the project (it way originally broken into 12 phases in 2010 and not one single project) it is likely the costs by state may vary.  ODOT has had to shell out a lot of funds for the Duke substation on the Ohio Side of the river that allow for the bridge construction that I don't know were not fully accounted for in the original splits.  I would still be surprised to see the Kentucky legislature move on tolling this year.

jdm00[/member] : States routinely take turns on who pays the lions share of projects like this. In a lot of areas, Kentucky owns the river, much like Ohio does in other areas - and West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois and so on. For instance:

 

* Ohio paid for most of the costs of the new Ironton-Russell Bridge over the Ohio between Ironton, Oh. and Russell, Ky.

* West Virginia paid for most of the costs of rehabilitating the I-64 bridges over the Big Sandy River between Ky. and W.Va.

* Kentucky paid for most of the costs of the William Harsha Bridge over the Ohio River between Maysville, Ky. and Aberdeen, Oh.

* Ohio paid for most of the costs of the new Portsmouth/US 23 Bridge between Portsmouth, Oh. and South Shore, Ky. over the Ohio River, but Kentucky paid for most of the costs of the bypass bridge between Ky. and West Portsmouth, Oh.

* Kentucky provides funding for the Aberdeen Ferry between Aberdeen, Ky. and Oh.

* West Virginia provides funding for the Sisterville Ferry between W.Va. and Oh.

* Kentucky provided much of the funding for the original Brent Spence Bridge between Covington, Ky. and Cincinnati, Oh., the Central Bridge replacement and the I-471 bridge between Newport, Ky. and Cincinnati, Oh.

* Kentucky provided 70% of the state funding (with Indiana matching the remainder) for the Downtown and East End bridges over the Ohio River between Louisville, Ky. and Indiana (also will be tolled).

* Kentucky provided much of the funding for the US 231 bridge over the Ohio River at Owensboro, Ky.

* Kentucky will provide around 70% of the funding for the new I-69 bridge over the Ohio River at Henderson, Ky. (also will be tolled).

* Indiana provided much of the funding for the Milton-Madison Bridge over the Ohio River between Ky. and Madison, In. and the Brandenburg Bridge between In. and Brandenburg, Ky.

 

I'm sure I'm missing some examples though.

^70%? The feds don't match funds any more?

Sorry, I was going off of state match. The federal government can provide more funding depending on the circumstance. For instance, the East Huntington Bridge over the Ohio between Huntington, W.Va. and Proctorville, Oh. was a federal demonstration project of the cable stayed bridge design, so it received much more funding from the federal government than other projects. It was to be tolled if phase two of the bridge was completed, but that never came to pass. To the west, the (current) US 52 bridge between west Huntington, W.Va. and Oh. was tolled and received no federal funding. Tolls paid off the bonds and were removed in the late 1980's.

Wouldn't the second phase of the East Huntington Bridge have carried a much more important road?

It would have gone to US 60 (http://bridgestunnels.com/bridges/ohio-river/east-huntington-bridge-wv-104-oh-607/). I haven't updated the article in some time but I have scans of the renderings and the layouts somewhere.

Honestly. To lower costs. They should look at international companies to do the job.

Just one more reason not to toll the bridge. http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2015/03/18/express-lane-405-tolls/24949471/

^Those are tolls for optional express lanes to bypass traffic, not a bridge.  And if you read more than just the headline, the rate sounds quite reasonable.  Many vehicles can actually use those lanes for free:

 

Good To Go! toll rates will range from a minimum of 75 cents to a maximum of $10. It is estimated that the typical toll will range from 75 cents to $4.

 

• Carpools with three or more people will be exempt from paying a toll at all times, and carpools with two people will be exempt, except during weekday peak hours (5 – 9 a.m. and 3 – 7 p.m.). Motorcycles, transit vehicles, and vanpools will also be exempt.

 

 

If I was driving alone and in a big hurry (on the way to a job interview or a date), I'd happily pay $10 to bypass a traffic jam.  That's a no-brainer.

Does everyone know how much the actual bridge replacement costs?  Not the entire project budget?

 

It's $700 million to build a new bridge and connect it.  It's $2 billion more to widen the Interstates from Ezzard Charles to Ft. Mitchell and rebuild a dozen interchanges to handle the wider roads.

 

This project is the biggest bunch of BS (no pun intended) ever.

 

They should build a new bridge & connect it to the existing interstates for around $700 million, toll it at .50 cents to a dollar and be done with it. 

 

This giant 8 mile highway widening boondoggle is unneeded.

^Those are tolls for optional express lanes to bypass traffic, not a bridge.  And if you read more than just the headline, the rate sounds quite reasonable.  Many vehicles can actually use those lanes for free:

 

Good To Go! toll rates will range from a minimum of 75 cents to a maximum of $10. It is estimated that the typical toll will range from 75 cents to $4.

 

• Carpools with three or more people will be exempt from paying a toll at all times, and carpools with two people will be exempt, except during weekday peak hours (5 – 9 a.m. and 3 – 7 p.m.). Motorcycles, transit vehicles, and vanpools will also be exempt.

 

 

If I was driving alone and in a big hurry (on the way to a job interview or a date), I'd happily pay $10 to bypass a traffic jam.  That's a no-brainer.

The higher toll is not  to pay for the HOT lane it's to pay for additional police to enforce it. Crazy. The citizens has no control over tolls.

Does everyone know how much the actual bridge replacement costs?  Not the entire project budget?

 

It's $700 million to build a new bridge and connect it.  It's $2 billion more to widen the Interstates from Ezzard Charles to Ft. Mitchell and rebuild a dozen interchanges to handle the wider roads.

 

This project is the biggest bunch of BS (no pun intended) ever.

 

They should build a new bridge & connect it to the existing interstates for around $700 million, toll it at .50 cents to a dollar and be done with it. 

 

This giant 8 mile highway widening boondoggle is unneeded.

 

But what's the point of expanding the bridge if you don't add more lanes leading up to it on either side? How can you have a 14-lane bridge but only 8 lanes leading up to it?

The higher toll is not  to pay for the HOT lane it's to pay for additional police to enforce it. Crazy. The citizens has no control over tolls.

 

Actually, individual citizens have complete control over the toll, because the toll is voluntary.  In most places, you can't use the HOV lane at all if you aren't carpooling.  In this instance, they're giving drivers the ability to pay for use of the HOV lane.  Motocycles, buses, cars with 2+ people will still be able to use the HOV lane for free.  Some enforcement of the HOV lane is required, I suppose, to prevent abuse.  If they want to pay for that by collecting tolls from people who are in a rush, so be it.

Does everyone know how much the actual bridge replacement costs?  Not the entire project budget?

 

It's $700 million to build a new bridge and connect it.  It's $2 billion more to widen the Interstates from Ezzard Charles to Ft. Mitchell and rebuild a dozen interchanges to handle the wider roads.

 

This project is the biggest bunch of BS (no pun intended) ever.

 

They should build a new bridge & connect it to the existing interstates for around $700 million, toll it at .50 cents to a dollar and be done with it. 

 

This giant 8 mile highway widening boondoggle is unneeded.

 

But what's the point of expanding the bridge if you don't add more lanes leading up to it on either side? How can you have a 14-lane bridge but only 8 lanes leading up to it?

 

Agreed. What really needs to happen is to spend a fraction of what they're proposing on reconfiguring the ramps so that more local traffic can use the currently underutilized Taylor Southgate and Clay Wade Bailey Bridges, then toll the currently BSB. Problem solved.

Does anyone remember the OKI BSB traffic congestion video?

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/N9JNFL_CzZE

 

According to the video we should be experiencing 3 miles of congestion all the time from the bridge. I have been driving down from Dayton during rush hour to downtown almost every Friday for the last 2 months and I see this type of congestion...for the Ronald Reagan Highway! Not the bridge. Am I living in an alternate reality from OKI?

 

Or maybe OKI is using the same travel demand simulator as Cities: Skylines?

 

 

http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/03/what-will-happen-on-the-new-brent-spence-when-more.html

 

Thought this one was interesting. ODOT admitting that building the bridge might not actually help relieve congestion, but create more. An infuriating attitude about transit though. He pretty much says, yes we planned for transit to go in this too, but we don't feel like figuring that part out yet, so whatever. First I had heard of an intention to include transit cooridors in this project. It also seems odd to try to incorporate using the shoulders as travel lanes, unless this is an idea to eliminate lanes, resulting in cost reduction.

Does the Brent Spence Bridge project need to be so big?

 

"The project didn’t start out costing $2.6 billion to build. Early estimates in Business Courier reports dating back to 2003 hovered around $500 million. [...] Estimates jumped above $2 billion for the first time in 2006 when planners released the full scope of the project."

I was driving into Cincinnati and noticed that new "HM" green signs have been installed in Northern Kentucky indicating that hazardous materials are allowed on I-275. However, I am not sure why they went to this effort, since no signs were installed to indicate that hazardous materials are not allowed on I-75/71.

 

In Columbus, I believe they have green circle HM signs on I-270 and red circle-and-cross HM signs within the beltway, to indicate that trucks carrying hazardous material should go around the city.

 

I am just really curious why they went to this effort. Because we keep hearing that truck traffic can not be routed around I-275, because it's too long of a detour. And yet they seem to be taking the first step towards doing that for trucks carrying hazardous materials. Or, perhaps this is similar to the signs on I-71 south telling people to use I-471 to get to the airport (instead of using the much more direct route of staying on I-71)... it encourages traffic to go around but does not actually do anything to enforce it.

^ That is odd since they just closed a lane in each direction for the whole summer for one of the bridges in Indiana on I-275.

The daily traffic count on the I-275 Combs-Hehl Bridge is just 35,000.  That's much lower than the Western Hills Viaduct.  Yes, I-275 completely fails in its ostensible roll as a bypass. 

I was driving into Cincinnati and noticed that new "HM" green signs have been installed in Northern Kentucky indicating that hazardous materials are allowed on I-275. However, I am not sure why they went to this effort, since no signs were installed to indicate that hazardous materials are not allowed on I-75/71.

 

In Columbus, I believe they have green circle HM signs on I-270 and red circle-and-cross HM signs within the beltway, to indicate that trucks carrying hazardous material should go around the city.

 

I am just really curious why they went to this effort. Because we keep hearing that truck traffic can not be routed around I-275, because it's too long of a detour. And yet they seem to be taking the first step towards doing that for trucks carrying hazardous materials. Or, perhaps this is similar to the signs on I-71 south telling people to use I-471 to get to the airport (instead of using the much more direct route of staying on I-71)... it encourages traffic to go around but does not actually do anything to enforce it.

 

No idea when the signs were put up, but if they went up today, it could be a response to the closing of Lytle Tunnel over the weekend when a truck overturned carrying flammable/hazardous material.  This story says that the truck wasn't supposed to be using the tunnel: 

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/police-semi-that-overturned-in-lytle-tunnel-shouldnt-have-been-there-in-the-first-place

 

Semis aren't supposed to use the tunnel, period, no matter what they're carrying. Yet once every couple of months, a clueless driver tries it and fails.

The HM route is signed to go around the east side not the west.  So the construction on CH is not a factor.

Semis aren't supposed to use the tunnel, period, no matter what they're carrying. Yet once every couple of months, a clueless driver tries it and fails.

Semis are allowed to use the Lytle Tunnel. Only Hazmats are detoured