I spotted that article from the Cincinnati Enquirer via Tollroadsnews about an eastern bypass of Cincy as an alternative to Bruce Spence bridge.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-for-november-9-2015#brent-spence
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/11/08/bypass-not-brent-spence-fix-good-idea-red-herring/75292866/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=
Will the Cincy Eastern Bypass become Interstate 875, a relocation of Interstate 71, or have some other designation? Does anyone know?
Would it be feasible from traffic loads to extend 471 to the southwest and have it become a relocated 71?
Route numbering aside, the issue would be, assuming you could force 100% of the thru traffic to use the bypass, what %age is that, and thus what is left to use the current bridges and can the current bridges handle that capacity?
Anybody have any hard numbers?
If the capacity of the current Brent Spence Bridge were reduced, its usage would drop accordingly, assuming alternate options exist. But that doesn't mean doing so is a good idea.
Whatever is done to replace the Brent Spence Bridge, could they make it a single deck bridge instead of a double deck bridge? And they should add emergency sholders to the new bridge as well.
This is an unrealistic idea being pushed by a few "anti-tax" extremists.
Will only work if you move downtown Cincinnati to the new bypass. That's where most of the traffic is going.
This is a Mecklenborg (cincinnatitransit) idea, but closing the ramps into Covington would greatly ease the "functionally obsolete" aspects of the bridge and wouldn't cost billions.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 10, 2015, 05:27:28 PM
This is an unrealistic idea being pushed by a few "anti-tax" extremists.
Indeed, the claim is that this bypass route will cost less than replacing the bridge. Which, even if that were somehow true (the Bypass route would also need a new bridge...), is absurd as a money saving proposition because building a bypass route won't stop the existing bridge from falling into the river because it's old and decrepit. People assume the existing bridge will last forever and only needs replacing because of traffic congestion. Not so.
That said, I don't blame people for opposing tolls on it. The existing bridge is free and they, understandably, don't want to lose that.
Furthermore, since there are several other nearby bridges, if you toll one of them you have to toll all of them or create lotsa shunpike traffic.
Noticed from the article that the proponent of the bypass is a house builder. Clearly he wants the bypass built so that he can build home along the highway. Pretty typical lobbying effort.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 09, 2015, 04:36:03 PM
Will the Cincy Eastern Bypass become Interstate 875, a relocation of Interstate 71, or have some other designation? Does anyone know?
Funny than you mentionned I-875, I spotted that proposed number on Kurumi.com about an outer loop of Cincy.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on November 11, 2015, 07:47:06 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 09, 2015, 04:36:03 PM
Will the Cincy Eastern Bypass become Interstate 875, a relocation of Interstate 71, or have some other designation? Does anyone know?
Funny than you mentionned I-875, I spotted that proposed number on Kurumi.com about an outer loop of Cincy.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html
Yes, I've heard about the I-875 proposal before. It's been almost 20 years since that highway was last discussed.
QuoteA proposed $1.6 billion, 225-mile outer beltway around Cincinnati, concentric with I-275. The proposed route: "would pass through Brown County, Ohio, crossing into Kentucky via the new Maysville-Aberdeen bridge, along Kentucky 9 near Brooksville, then intersecting the cities of Falmouth in Pendleton County, Williamstown in Grant County, Owenton in Owen County, through Carroll County and into Gallatin County. The road would connect with the Markland Dam near Warsaw before crossing into Indiana."
There has not been much buzz about this route since 1997, however.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 10, 2015, 05:27:28 PM
This is an unrealistic idea being pushed by a few "anti-tax" extremists.
No, it's being pushed by those who are anti-toll, not anti-tax.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 10, 2015, 11:01:26 PMPeople assume the existing bridge will last forever and only needs replacing because of traffic congestion. Not so.
Actually, so. The existing bridge is still fine structurally. Of course it will need repairs at some point. All bridges do. But it's not structurally deficient. Functionally obsolete, yes. But not structurally deficient.
There's consternation among some of the anti-toll advocates because Gov.-Elect Bevin (and it's SO great to be able to say that) chose primary rival Hal Heiner to be his transition leader for KYTC. Heiner was in favor of tolls and Bevin wasn't.