A MAJOR ouch!!

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/northern-ky/amanda-van-benschoten/2014/03/18/bsb-setback/6566949/

A MAJOR ouch!!

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/northern-ky/amanda-van-benschoten/2014/03/18/bsb-setback/6566949/

 

Wow... KY pulled all of the funding except that federally earmarked funding that can't be used for anything else.

Yikes. But it's not yet a done deal:

 

"...the House of Representatives budget committee essentially pulled all state money for the project, leaving just $23 million for the bridge in its road plan. The plan now heads to the House floor for a vote."

 

And:

 

"The committee's move came after some legislative maneuvering by state Rep. Arnold Simpson, D-Covington, to exempt the project from tolling under a public-private partnership bill the House passed on Monday. That bill now heads to the Senate."

 

If both pass, tolling is a dead deal. But there is no other way to finance this project, and as it stands right now, public monies towards this project will not happen. It's why the Kennedy Bridge supplemental span and East End Bridge for I-65 North and I-265 in Louisville will be tolled, and why the I-69 span between Henderson, KY and Evansville, IN will be tolled. Both are billion+ dollar projects and the state nor federal government will pony up that kind of money in the short term.

Glad to see the KY House had some guts to shoot down the tool aspects of a Brent Spence Replacement/Addition. Good to see some people around here have some sense.

I was glad to read that at least one of the Kentucky government officials acknowledges that the bridge replacement is not really needed in the first place.  Hopefully the project stalls and is left by the wayside, and we can figure out how to fund transit in order to deal with traffic instead of following the traditional solution of adding more lanes.  2 billion dollars can definitely be better spent elsewhere.

There is a simplu solutuon no one wants to address. Do Not Route I-71 through downtown Cincinnati. You already have an existing bridge to route I-71 traffic across (The Daniel Carter Beard Bridge, better known as the Big Mac).

 

So funnel I-71 traffic across I-471 to I-275 then South. Will this be a disruption? damn good and well it will! But look at the result. No through interstate traffic in downtown Cincinnati. Not only cap FWW, but maybe fill it in, This should get the urbanists going.

 

Do I believe this is a hair-brained proposal? No I do not. If you have a current merging of the traffic of two interstates causing a clog, what is the best way to alleviate it - move the clog. If in the process of doing this you alleviate the conjestion of two interstates through the middle of downtown Cincinnati, what more can you ask for? Perhaps you can actually permit Cincinnati to make money on the deal.

I've thought about that before, why didn't they do that when 471 was built?  I don't know enough about the history, or about the details involved to really give any advice on that kind of a project, but splitting 71 off from the merge with 75 makes sense to me.

There isn't much thru traffic on I-71.  It's mostly commuters.  Re-signing I-471 as I-71 wouldn't make much of a difference. 

There isn't much thru traffic on I-71.  It's mostly commuters.  Re-signing I-471 as I-71 wouldn't make much of a difference. 

 

Unless you banned semi trucks in the FWW trench, most would continue to use the current I-71 route no matter what it's signed.

Banning hazardous material through-traffic like Columbus has would cut semi traffic significantly. If you've ever wondered what the "HC" or "HM" signs are on I-270 exit signs, now you know.

Most trucks are not carrying hazardous material - FHWA estimates that 7% are certified to carry such items. But 94% of all hazardous material shipped is by truck (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/hmship.pdf).

 

Going back to the article, it seems like the Democrats also killed off the Mountain Parkway widening, which would have been tolled. The project would have been completed within six years at a cost of $753 million (Campton to Prestonsburg). $252 million would have been spent FY 2014 and 2015; $595 million in state and federal funds. Tolls would have provided the $158 million for the project. Now, the project timeline is six to ten years at best, and my rep at KYTC says that could be anywhere from ten to twenty years at current funding levels. The initial investment has been dropped to $123 million for FY 2014 and 2015. The parkway was initially tolled - why there is such opposition to funding roads such as this is beyond me.

Banning hazardous material through-traffic like Columbus has would cut semi traffic significantly. If you've ever wondered what the "HC" or "HM" signs are on I-270 exit signs, now you know.

 

Removing trucks would help, but then you just accelerate the growth of the exurbs in Boone County when the trucks disappear.  20 years later, you've got the same number of vehicles clogging up the bridge, but most of them are commuters.  I know more than one person who has moved northward because they couldn't deal with the bridge traffic during their morning commute anymore.  The best answer is to discourage use of the bridge via a modest toll, but Kentuckians won't accept that. 

The bridge is $700 million everything else leading up to the bridge runs up the costs. Why is I-75 not tolled? But when it comes to bridges it's tolls!!!

Glad to see the KY House had some guts to shoot down the tool aspects of a Brent Spence Replacement/Addition. Good to see some people around here have some sense.

 

I think that one of the reasons that Kentucky is so against tolls is that they think tolls will impact people's decision of whether to live in Cincy vs. NKY.  A lot more people work in Ohio, but live in NKY than the other way around.  There are more jobs in Ohio, but KY has lower state taxes.  So a lot of people choose to live in KY and commute across the bridge every day.  Tolls will play a factor in where some people choose to make their home. 

If that was the case, why would they shoot down the Mountain Parkway widening project and lob against the Ohio River Bridges Project in Louisville - which involves nearly $4 billion in construction costs, two bridges and a tunnel? At least with that project, it received approval for tolling some time back and had its funding locked in so political nannies couldn't have at it.

^ The answer would probably be that in L'ville, the situation is reversed, and the jobs are on the KY side of the river. You might then ask why Indiana went for it, and to that I would recommend you look up some of the stuff arenn wrote on the topic, e.g. this.

Kentucky is footing the vast majority of the bill for those bridges/tunnel as Kentucky's border with Indiana extends to the north shore of the Ohio River. In the Brent Spence Bridge project, it's a similar matter; the Ohio border is along the Cincinnati banks of the Ohio River.

There isn't much thru traffic on I-71.  It's mostly commuters.  Re-signing I-471 as I-71 wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

Good point.  I forgot that there really isnt that much traffic on I-71 compared to I-75.

Sherman, If your perspective (hypothetically) is that the bigger city is poised to gain more from such a project, then it would make more sense for a state to invest a greater amount if it has the big city involved. In the case of Louisville, if what you say is true, then the state where the costs lie and the benefits lie is the same (KY), whereas in the BSB case the costs lie in KY and the benefits lie in OH. Or so goes the theory BlackBengal proposed.

 

IMO having a new bridge at all benefits KY more than OH, tolls or none. But that's why KYians would pay more in tolls, so that component of tolls strikes me as fair. Many people cry about it being "disproportionate" because KY residents will pay more, because they'll use it more. But that strikes me as the very definition of proportionate. At any rate, I'm glad to see the project hit a major roadblock (no pun intended), but not happy to see a broad rejection of a proportional user fee (toll) model for this and other projects into the future.

IMO having a new bridge at all benefits KY more than OH, tolls or none.

 

Agreed, for those areas in KY south of, say, the Buttermilk Pike exit.  But this new bridge is going to completely screw up the west side of Covington, which was already gutted when I-75 came through the first time.  It would also lead to a decline in desirability of the inner ring suburbs of Fort Wright and Fort Mitchell, unless of course the housing boom that will accelerate in Boone County pulls residents chiefly out of Ohio, which isn't good either. 

Well, put it this way: if the bridge leads to any development or business location decisions, these things will happen in KY.

 

Overall, it's a negative for both states, hence why it's an insane boondoggle.

^Yes.  IMO, the best thing that could happen here is nothing.  Just let the current bridge situation exist and use that to shift the conversation to regional light rail.

^Yes.  IMO, the best thing that could happen here is nothing.  Just let the current bridge situation exist and use that to shift the conversation to regional light rail.

 

Totally Agree.

Bold suggestion: eliminate fww.

^That would never happen. It's only about a decade old and cost $100+ million to build. Want to put waste on top of waste?

 

That's why it's bold.  Prolly stupid too.  ;)

Bold suggestion: eliminate fww.

 

I don't see any reason to eliminate FWW. It already exists and isn't going to require significant maintenance/rebuilding for some time. Even without the interstates, it still carries US-50. If anything, I would like to see more of the thru-traffic shifted to the FWW trench, and see 2nd and 3rd streets drastically overhauled. After FWW is capped, both 2nd and 3rd could be come two-way, or at least be rebuilt with wider sidewalks, cycle tracks, etc.

NKY Chamber guy chats with Dan Hurley about the bridge.

http://www.local12.com//entertainment/features/newsmakers/stories/newsmakers-march-23-2014-61.shtml

It looks like the Senate restored funding for the bridge, but it has the * of no tolls. Which means the project is a non-starter. Kasich is still pushing for money from ODOT for preliminary engineering for the new I-75 approach to the new bridge, which involves rerouting of I-75 away from downtown and new ramps to I-71.

I believe that ODOT is currently starting to buy right of way this spring.  Duke working on the reconstruction of its substation on the river to make way for the new bridge.  I believe the monies that KY is restoring are for the right of way in Covington.  The preliminary engineering has been done by and large at this point and the final plans would be completed by the contractor team once they have the money in hand to cover availability payments.  I am surprised that there has been no mention of only tolling the I-75 mainline and leaving the local connections to Covington and downtown untouched which would give the urban short cut commuters a free pass. 

 

 

I am surprised that there has been no mention of only tolling the I-75 mainline and leaving the local connections to Covington and downtown untouched which would give the urban short cut commuters a free pass.

 

It's because they're continuing to push the lie that the current bridge is in danger of collapse by calling the new bridge a "replacement" not an "addition."  It's simple fear mongering. 

Ky Gov Beshear  vetoes the bill banning tolls.

Didn't see that coming. I thought the Enquirer was yelling at clouds with their editorial. NKY folks, aside from business leaders, are against tolls. People in the rest of the state a) probably want the option to use PPPs ASAP, b) are probably happy to see NKY not build a major project which competes for state money, and c) can't possibly appreciate whiny NKYians holding up legislation that affects the whole state. In short, the only people who wanted the veto was a small group of Cincinnati-area business folks. I guess those people have enough money to influence Beshear's actions. Interesting.

Not really. The state has historically been open for tolling. We had nine parkways that were built in an expedited fashion early on (some predated interstates) due to tolling - the Kentucky Turnpike in 1954, the Mountain Parkway in 1963, and so on. Tolls were removed on all but two parkways and pikes when the bonds were paid off; the Audubon and Daniel Boone had their pay-off's expedited by an influential senator. Practically every bridge over the Ohio River that Kentucky and Ohio owned was tolled. To that, with the sucking of the federal government tit in the past few decades, tolls has all but been eradicated on the bridges.

 

Tolls will be coming to the new I-65 northbound bridge (and the rehabbed southbound span) in Louisville and to the East End Bridge for Interstate 265 - combined, it's a $4 billion project. Tolls are similarly being studied right now for a new Interstate 69 crossing between Henderson and Evansville, Indiana - because that project is already estimated at over $1 billion due to the terrain. And why does Northern Kentucky think it's special and has to be dead set on tolls? Because it would hamper commuters from Kentucky into Cincinnati and Ohio? It would harm business in Covington? That's laughable; it's twice as long travel via Interstate 275 and 471 and it's well over twice as long to take the loop around the metro.

 

How else do they expect for the project to be paid? With federal funds that simply don't exist? Or state of Kentucky funds that don't (and won't) exist? Governor Kasich said it best: "We can't bank on this project succeeding on the federal government's dime alone. It's too expensive and we need to toll it to get that bridge built now, not 30 years in the future."

Sherman, I was just commenting on the politics of it. The fact is NKY voters generally support the anti-toll amendment, and I don't think the rest of the state wants to see the whole bill go up in flames due to an NKY-exclusive issue. Basically, it seems like Beshear vetoed the bill to appease a few business hotshots.

 

It doesn't matter that tolling is the only way to get it built, when voters don't seem to care about or believe that fact.

Kinda sounds like smoke & mirrors, I'm sure Paul & Chabot will oppose it

 

U.S. transportation chief: Money for Brent Spence could be found in freight plan

“If states come together and show they’re being innovative, that they’re helping us fill gaps in our freight movement system, that grants will be awarded of a size that will encourage multiple states to come together to get scale out of those investments,” Foxx said. "So there’s not a line item for it, but there are categories within our proposal where it wouldn’t be too hard to imagine opportunities for a project like that to move forward.”

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/04/u-s-transportation-chief-money-for-brent-spence.html

I'm entitled to a congestion-free rush hour commute, because freight.

If the BSB is as crucial of a link in our freight network as ODOT officials claim, let them make that case to the feds!

Lobbyists. Gotta love them.

2 bridges used to highlight road woes

"Before you cross the Brent Spence Bridge in Covington, ads on an electronic billboard on Interstates 71/75 will warn you that the bridge is functionally obsolete and will advise you to carry a life vest."

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/06/13/bridges-used-highlight-road-woes/10500781/?fb_action_ids=829424950402432&fb_action_types=og.comments&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

 

It disgusts me how people use "functionally obsolete" as a scare tactic.

 

 

Someone should notify Smitherman that Rob Richardson is lobbying for the Brent Spence companion bridge. So Smitherman can go on WLW and preach about what a boondoggle it is.

Brand new and totally huge 5+ mile bridge and tunnel project in Korea with no emergency shoulders:

Brand new and totally huge 5+ mile bridge and tunnel project in Korea with no emergency shoulders:

 

Well, not exactly no emergency shoulders. It appears to have emergency stopping areas every so often, which are probably safer than standard emergency shoulders because you can pull farther away from moving traffic.

Brand new and totally huge 5+ mile bridge and tunnel project in Korea with no emergency shoulders:

 

Well, not exactly no emergency shoulders. It appears to have emergency stopping areas every so often, which are probably safer than standard emergency shoulders because you can pull farther away from moving traffic.

 

It would probably save hundreds of millions if the additional Brent Spence Bridge would be built without shoulders, just emergency stopping areas at either end at grade.

 

Just understanding that concept could actually save billions on the project, because people would realize the bridge doesn’t need replaced because the lanes are narrow. What it needs are tolls on the current bridge at peak usage, and a 45 mph speed limit.

 

Brand new and totally huge 5+ mile bridge and tunnel project in Korea with no emergency shoulders:

 

Well, not exactly no emergency shoulders. It appears to have emergency stopping areas every so often, which are probably safer than standard emergency shoulders because you can pull farther away from moving traffic.

 

It would probably save hundreds of millions if the additional Brent Spence Bridge would be built without shoulders, just emergency stopping areas at either end at grade.

 

Just understanding that concept could actually save billions on the project, because people would realize the bridge doesn’t need replaced because the lanes are narrow. What it needs are tolls on the current bridge at peak usage, and a 45 mph speed limit.

 

If you do some combination or all of the following:

 

- Toll the existing Brent Spence Bridge (and preferably the Big Mac Bridge too)

- Eliminate the 5th Street exit in Covington

- Better connect the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge to I-75

- Significantly increase the number of people carpooling or taking transit across the river

- Require long-haul trucks to take I-275 around the city

 

... then you eliminate the need for the new bridge altogether.

Also there was a traffic study in the late 90s that found a significant number of people traveling between Newport and Covington via both bridges and FWW.  Now, I don't expect that many people are foolish enough to do that during rush hour, since it's tough to imagine it reliably being faster than puttering across the 5th or 12th St. bridges over the Licking River.  But no doubt this habit added 1,000 or more trips daily to each of the Ohio River bridges.  That all goes away with tolls (and incidentally the 12th St. or "Shortway" bridge still had a toll up through the 1980s, which no doubt helped spur the practice). 

 

 

 

If you do some combination or all of the following:

 

- Toll the existing Brent Spence Bridge (and preferably the Big Mac Bridge too)

- Eliminate the 5th Street exit in Covington

- Better connect the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge to I-75

- Significantly increase the number of people carpooling or taking transit across the river

- Require long-haul trucks to take I-275 around the city

 

... then you eliminate the need for the new bridge altogether.

 

A new bridge will be needed. After 40 years of the river current. It could be undermining the piers. Do they even inspect underwater?

^ If that were the case then we'd also need to be replacing the Cincinnati Southern Bridge, the C&O/Clay Wade Bailey Bridge, both I-275 bridges, and the L&N/Purple People Bridge, while the Roebling Bridge would have collapsed into the river decades ago. 

No, I've heard that the piers are in excellent condition.  The only piers in question along the whole river are the suspension bridge piers, which engineers fear might be rocking back and forth due to the crushing of the ball bearings in the cable saddles due to primitive 1860s construction techniques.  Turns out the only feature of the bridge that wasn't grossly over-engineered were the bearings, and this is causing the towers themselves to tilt inward and outward with temperature swings, and engineers have no idea what this movement is doing to the base of the piers.  Possibly nothing whatsoever. 

 

And please note that the bridge piers on the Southern, Clay Wade, and L&N bridges are all over 125 years old.  The Southern is carrying 25+ freight trains per day on piers from the 1870s. 

^ So instead of the cable simply resting on top of the towers, able to slip a little bit with changes in loading and expansion/contraction, they've basically become locked to the towers? 

Is this a little crazy that a new bridge costs more than the MetroMoves plan that would have done more to the region than a new bridge ever would?