I-71/I-75 Brent Spence Bridge Replacement

[abqtraveler]

This is one of my pet peeves about how projects are funded. Instead of Congress allocating a lump sum and then making states beg/jump through hoops/compete for crumbs, why shouldn't the legislative body specify where the money goes?

There was a time not too long ago when there was this thing called Congressional earmarks (may call this "pork") where a highway, bridge, or some other pet project in a Congressperson's district could be fully funded. Members of Congress used earmarks as part of the horse-trading the get otherwise controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line. About 10 or so years ago, Congress decided to ban earmarks, but they have since brought earmarks back to some extent, not so much for highway and bridge projects, but for so-called "human infrastructure," or more accurately...handouts.

[Rothman]

This is one of my pet peeves about how projects are funded. Instead of Congress allocating a lump sum and then making states beg/jump through hoops/compete for crumbs, why shouldn't the legislative body specify where the money goes?

There was a time not too long ago when there was this thing called Congressional earmarks (may call this "pork") where a highway, bridge, or some other pet project in a Congressperson's district could be fully funded. Members of Congress used earmarks as part of the horse-trading the get otherwise controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line. About 10 or so years ago, Congress decided to ban earmarks, but they have since brought earmarks back to some extent, not so much for highway and bridge projects, but for so-called "human infrastructure," or more accurately...handouts.

But, we aren't talking about earmarks, but competitive grants that require sponsors to fill out onerous applications to compete.  Although competitive grants have been around in one form or another, the recent bills have exploded their number in terms of types of programs.

[abqtraveler]

This is one of my pet peeves about how projects are funded. Instead of Congress allocating a lump sum and then making states beg/jump through hoops/compete for crumbs, why shouldn't the legislative body specify where the money goes?

There was a time not too long ago when there was this thing called Congressional earmarks (may call this "pork") where a highway, bridge, or some other pet project in a Congressperson's district could be fully funded. Members of Congress used earmarks as part of the horse-trading the get otherwise controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line. About 10 or so years ago, Congress decided to ban earmarks, but they have since brought earmarks back to some extent, not so much for highway and bridge projects, but for so-called "human infrastructure," or more accurately...handouts.

But, we aren't talking about earmarks, but competitive grants that require sponsors to fill out onerous applications to compete.  Although competitive grants have been around in one form or another, the recent bills have exploded their number in terms of types of programs.

My point is that states (and individual projects) didn't have to compete for funding when Congress allowed earmarks for road and bridge projects. It was all a matter of how well your local congressman was at making deals to get the funding included in the appropriations bills. With these competitive grants, I'm not sure how they decide on one project being funded over the next, but from what I've seen with these competitive grants is the decision on funding a project is now placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats with no input from Congress.

[Rothman]

This is one of my pet peeves about how projects are funded. Instead of Congress allocating a lump sum and then making states beg/jump through hoops/compete for crumbs, why shouldn't the legislative body specify where the money goes?

There was a time not too long ago when there was this thing called Congressional earmarks (may call this "pork") where a highway, bridge, or some other pet project in a Congressperson's district could be fully funded. Members of Congress used earmarks as part of the horse-trading the get otherwise controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line. About 10 or so years ago, Congress decided to ban earmarks, but they have since brought earmarks back to some extent, not so much for highway and bridge projects, but for so-called "human infrastructure," or more accurately...handouts.

But, we aren't talking about earmarks, but competitive grants that require sponsors to fill out onerous applications to compete.  Although competitive grants have been around in one form or another, the recent bills have exploded their number in terms of types of programs.

My point is that states (and individual projects) didn't have to compete for funding when Congress allowed earmarks for road and bridge projects. It was all a matter of how well your local congressman was at making deals to get the funding included in the appropriations bills. With these competitive grants, I'm not sure how they decide on one project being funded over the next, but from what I've seen with these competitive grants is the decision on funding a project is now placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats with no input from Congress.

They do move the selection authority from Congress to the Executive.  But, like I said, it's not like earmarks and grants were exclusive.  There have been competitive grants available over the entire tenure of my career.  The number of them has just grown considerably.

[hbelkins]

In the news coverage here, much was made of the bipartisan cooperation between Gov. Beshear (D) of Kentucky, Sens. Portman and McConnell and Gov. Dewine of Ohio (all R) and the Biden administration and Secretary Buttgieg (D).

One of the stories honed in on McConnell and Portman lobbying the feds for the grant.

This is one of my pet peeves about how projects are funded. Instead of Congress allocating a lump sum and then making states beg/jump through hoops/compete for crumbs, why shouldn't the legislative body specify where the money goes?

I'm not a fan of this process. I've said many times before that the representatives out in the field/on the ground have a better grasp on the needs than do bureaucrats in DC.

I have heard the recent bills cynically referred to as consultant assistance bills.  All the grant applications and short-staffed DOTs mean hiring consultants to apply for the ridiculous programs.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I'm sure Kentucky and Ohio used some engineering firm to help with the application process. They wouldn't have to be short-staffed to do so. It's SOP on most projects, funded through a competitive federal granting process or not.

Here's a typical Kentucky engineering career:

*Student gets KYTC scholarship, which provides them summer employment (and time accrual) in exchange for a commitment to work a handful of years for KYTC.
*Student goes to work for KYTC after graduation, goes through rotations in various departments as an EIT, passes the PE exam, then works for KYTC until they get 20 years service credit, at which time they are eligible for paid health insurance upon retirement.
*Employee retires some time after that 20 years of service credit around the ripe old age of 45, with a nice lifetime pension because the PEs earn high-five-figures/low-six-figures, then sign on with a consulting firm.
*Employee has a full second career with the engineering firm unless said employee gets appointed to a high management politically-appointed position at KYTC such as division director or department commissioner.

My point is that states (and individual projects) didn't have to compete for funding when Congress allowed earmarks for road and bridge projects. It was all a matter of how well your local congressman was at making deals to get the funding included in the appropriations bills. With these competitive grants, I'm not sure how they decide on one project being funded over the next, but from what I've seen with these competitive grants is the decision on funding a project is now placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats with no input from Congress.

And some of these project may appear to be local, but have much bigger impacts. The BSB is one of them. At first glance it might seem like a Kentucky-Ohio project, but there are definitely other interests in play -- such as those of Toyota, with a big factory adjacent to I-75 not all that far south of the river.

[Rothman]

In the news coverage here, much was made of the bipartisan cooperation between Gov. Beshear (D) of Kentucky, Sens. Portman and McConnell and Gov. Dewine of Ohio (all R) and the Biden administration and Secretary Buttgieg (D).

One of the stories honed in on McConnell and Portman lobbying the feds for the grant.

This is one of my pet peeves about how projects are funded. Instead of Congress allocating a lump sum and then making states beg/jump through hoops/compete for crumbs, why shouldn't the legislative body specify where the money goes?

I'm not a fan of this process. I've said many times before that the representatives out in the field/on the ground have a better grasp on the needs than do bureaucrats in DC.

I have heard the recent bills cynically referred to as consultant assistance bills.  All the grant applications and short-staffed DOTs mean hiring consultants to apply for the ridiculous programs.

(personal opinion emphasized)

I'm sure Kentucky and Ohio used some engineering firm to help with the application process. They wouldn't have to be short-staffed to do so. It's SOP on most projects, funded through a competitive federal granting process or not.

Here's a typical Kentucky engineering career:

*Student gets KYTC scholarship, which provides them summer employment (and time accrual) in exchange for a commitment to work a handful of years for KYTC.
*Student goes to work for KYTC after graduation, goes through rotations in various departments as an EIT, passes the PE exam, then works for KYTC until they get 20 years service credit, at which time they are eligible for paid health insurance upon retirement.
*Employee retires some time after that 20 years of service credit around the ripe old age of 45, with a nice lifetime pension because the PEs earn high-five-figures/low-six-figures, then sign on with a consulting firm.
*Employee has a full second career with the engineering firm unless said employee gets appointed to a high management politically-appointed position at KYTC such as division director or department commissioner.

My point is that states (and individual projects) didn't have to compete for funding when Congress allowed earmarks for road and bridge projects. It was all a matter of how well your local congressman was at making deals to get the funding included in the appropriations bills. With these competitive grants, I'm not sure how they decide on one project being funded over the next, but from what I've seen with these competitive grants is the decision on funding a project is now placed in the hands of unelected bureaucrats with no input from Congress.

And some of these project may appear to be local, but have much bigger impacts. The BSB is one of them. At first glance it might seem like a Kentucky-Ohio project, but there are definitely other interests in play -- such as those of Toyota, with a big factory adjacent to I-75 not all that far south of the river.

At NYSDOT, it depends if a consultant has been hired for preliminary design or not, which is correlated with the size/cost of the project.  This is typically why you only see very large projects get awarded federal grant funds in NY.  For smaller projects, although eligible for some grants, NYSDOT relies upon in-house engineers to get applications in and it's essentially viewed as a risky burden.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Plutonic Panda]

I guess this constitutes moving forward:

Kentucky and Ohio have put the call out to firms interested in building one of the nation's most significant infrastructure projects — the Brent Spence Bridge Corridor — just one month after Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Mike DeWine of Ohio joined bipartisan leaders to celebrate a historic $1.635 billion federal investment to move the project forward.

A request for proposals (RFP) to provide construction and design services on the long-awaited project was released by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC).

This contract addresses six of the eight miles of the total corridor; five miles of the Interstate Highway 71/75 corridor in Kentucky and one mile of I-75 in Ohio. It includes improvements to the Brent Spence Bridge and the construction of a companion bridge to its west. Work on the two northernmost sections of the corridor in Ohio will be done under separate contracts.

"Just a month ago, we celebrated a historic $1.635 billion in federal grant funding to build the new bridge crossing over the Ohio River and improve the entire Brent Spence Bridge Corridor with no tolls,"  said Gov. Beshear. "This is a huge step that gets us one step closer to fulfilling the dreams of thousands of travelers by providing traffic relief, increased safety and a boost to our nation's commerce."

- https://www.nkytribune.com/2023/02/kentucky-and-ohio-issue-request-for-proposals-for-construction-design-of-brent-spence-bridge-project/

[Plutonic Panda]

On track to start construction in November.



https://twitter.com/Mark_Paynewrite/status/1628777951931031553?s=20

Transportation Secretary Jim Gray and Kentucky's Transportation Cabinet's Brent Spence Bridge Project Manager Stacee Hans presented information on the bridge to the House Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation on Thursday.

It's the first time they have given the legislature an update since they approved $250 million in matching funds during the 2022 legislative session to apply for a federal grant for the project.

"We have a visible path to construction,"  Gray said, noting the importance of the matching funds.

Since the legislature provided those matching funds, the project secured a $1.6 billion grant from the federal government via the 2021 Infrastructure bill. In January, President Joe Biden visited Covington to tout the funding.

"I truly believe that the local match that we were able to demonstrate in our grant applications was certainly the pivotal and turning point,"  Hans said.

She noted that the transportation department requested the maximum amount for the grant criteria, which was $1.6 billion, and received $1.38 billion.

- https://linknky.com/kentucky/frankfort/2023/02/23/kentucky-transportation-secretary-gives-brent-spence-update/

[Plutonic Panda]

RFPs have been put out and they are due March 31st.

Responses to the RFP are due on March 31, 2023. The schedule calls for the design-build team to be selected in May, allowing for planning to take place immediately and initial construction work to begin before the year's end.

- https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/states-seek-rfps-to-begin-construction-on-brent-spence-bridge-corridor-project/60186

[Plutonic Panda]

The city apparently isn't too happy with the proposal and wants ODOT to rethink the design to see if the footprint can be narrowed.

The Ohio Department of Transportation should consider more ways to narrow the footprint of the Brent Spence Bridge approach, including the Bridge Forward proposal that seeks to reclaim 30 acres of land in the city's urban core, a resolution passed by Cincinnati City Council says.

Council, which pushed for the resolution, approved it unanimously on May 10, and it included Mayor Aftab Pureval as a co-sponsor. It's a significant move by council to try to shape the once-in-a-generation project.

"We are in a moment where ... we have to think differently,"  said Councilwoman Meeka Owens. "We are in a moment where we have the opportunity to do these things. It's not about emotions. It's about facts."

The resolution asks the city administration to "explore all options to reclaim additional land throughout the corridor,"  including reducing the highway's width, "streamline and reduce the footprint of downtown entry/exit points"  and "reviewing and considering various innovative concepts submitted to ODOT."

It also asks ODOT specifically report on the cost, feasibility and other considerations of alternative proposals, including Bridge Forward's plan.

Bridge Forward is a group of citizens that hopes to improve the Brent Spence corridor plan by adding developable land back to the West End. The group's overall vision calls for the state to narrow the highway's footprint as it approaches the Brent Spence Bridge and its new, companion bridge by creating two collector roads alongside each side of a trenched Interstate 75. It also alters the spaghetti configurations of roadways over the highway.

- https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/05/11/cincinnati-odot-brent-spence-redesign.html

[TempoNick]

Too late. They've been talking about this for 30 years and now they're complaining?

[GCrites]

Well former Mayor Cranley wouldn't have and didn't. Neither would have former councilman Smitherman.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Well former Mayor Cranley wouldn't have and didn't. Neither would have former councilman Smitherman.

What I would love to share over here, is the graph someone made, over on urbanohio, of the actually traffic count for the Brent Spence Bridge (for the last 20 years?) versus all the various projects the various state, region, and city entities have made over the decades as to why a new bridge should be built for the Brent Spence.

Gcrites & Seicer would know of what I'm writing about here.

[GCrites]

Then there's the graphs of traffic count projections on the bridge from the last 20 years that were way high vs. what the traffic counts ended up being.

[seicer]

Well former Mayor Cranley wouldn't have and didn't. Neither would have former councilman Smitherman.

What I would love to share over here, is the graph someone made, over on urbanohio, of the actually traffic count for the Brent Spence Bridge (for the last 20 years?) versus all the various projects the various state, region, and city entities have made over the decades as to why a new bridge should be built for the Brent Spence.

Gcrites & Seicer would know of what I'm writing about here.

From https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/476-cincinnati-brent-spence-bridge/?do=findComment&comment=1092293



While I am a proponent of a new Brent Spence Bridge, I am fearing that two bridges will be overkill and will be an enormous waste of taxpayers' dollars to keep both maintained for the next several decades. (The Brent Spence Bridge can remain standing for another century with proper maintenance.) Here are my fears:
- This does not enhance the overall capacity of I-71 or I-75. I-75 is only being widened to four lanes in each direction in Ohio, while I-75 in Kentucky is only gaining a lane up to the Dixie Highway interchange.
- This moves congestion away from the Brent Spence Bridge and Cincinnati to the merge areas in Covington. Covington also loses out on a lot of valuable land. This is a huge loss for this city and no amount of greenwashing both DOTs do can hide those fundamental issues.
- Traffic counts have been stagnant or dropping. The rosy projections that traffic will be crushing it at over 240,000 VPD by ODOT are insane.
- This is a huge loss for Cincinnati. While the proposals by certain groups (that have come way too late in the planning process) show what could be done, the fact is that there are no major development proposals west of downtown in the Queensgate neighborhood. The land that is Queensgate was formerly the Kenyon-Barr neighborhood, essentially an extension of the much-cherished Over-the-Rhine north of downtown. Nearly all of it was removed for I-75 and an industrial park. The footprint could be vastly smaller and I still think here is time for ODOT to button up the right-of-way as it contains way too much green space (that will never be properly maintained) and too many high-speed ramps that don't need to exist in an urban area.
- Going back to traffic counts - while both bridges will not be tolled, will one take the burden off to the point that both bridges will not be needed? Look at what happened to Louisville and it's boondoggles, and while that is the result of high tolls, it's also because of flawed traffic projections.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Well former Mayor Cranley wouldn't have and didn't. Neither would have former councilman Smitherman.

What I would love to share over here, is the graph someone made, over on urbanohio, of the actually traffic count for the Brent Spence Bridge (for the last 20 years?) versus all the various projects the various state, region, and city entities have made over the decades as to why a new bridge should be built for the Brent Spence.

Gcrites & Seicer would know of what I'm writing about here.

From https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/476-cincinnati-brent-spence-bridge/?do=findComment&comment=1092293

<snip image & commentary>

That is what I was looking for. Thank you, Sherman.

[TempoNick]

While I am a proponent of a new Brent Spence Bridge, I am fearing that two bridges will be overkill and will be an enormous waste of taxpayers' dollars to keep both maintained for the next several decades. (The Brent Spence Bridge can remain standing for another century with proper maintenance.)

My problem with what they're doing is that they don't just blow it up and completely replace it. If they've got money for a bridge in Davenport Iowa for I-74, they certainly should have one for the second most heavily trafficked highway in the nation, I-75.

Anybody who has driven that bridge regularly knows that it needs to be replaced. It's a bottleneck. It doesn't have any emergency lanes to pull over on. Poor sight lines. People have been killed on that bridge.

This bridge would be fine along some US Route like maybe US 23 or US 33, but it's too compromised to be carrying traffic for two major interstates.

[TempoNick]

That said, it seems like I-71 could be routed down I-471 And then I-275 to take some of the traffic away from that bridge. (Then you make that connector between the two I-471 I guess if you want to be anal about it. I think it's called Fort Washington Way.) I don't know if that just moves the bottleneck further south, but it seems like it's easier to deal with bottlenecks on land.

[amroad17]

That said, it seems like I-71 could be routed down I-471 And then I-275 to take some of the traffic away from that bridge. (Then you make that connector between the two I-471 I guess if you want to be anal about it. I think it's called Fort Washington Way.) I don't know if that just moves the bottleneck further south, but it seems like it's easier to deal with bottlenecks on land.

The main issue with routing I-71 along I-275 and I-471 is the fact that the current I-275 EB to I-471 NB ramp (74B) is only one lane.  This regularly backs up almost to the Wilder interchange (77) during rush hours.  Without improving the ramps, if I-71 was re-routed that way, the backups would probably extend to the Licking River (Poweleit) bridge or maybe the Taylor Mill interchange (79) because of the traffic that exits at the Wilder interchange.  One should see the backups on I-275 EB in the afternoon–slow traffic from I-75 all the way to I-471.

A possibility to re-route I-71 would be to move the routing on I-275 around the east side of Cincinnati (co-signed, of course so money could be saved not changing exit numbers).  It is only 10 extra miles traveling I-275 around Cincinnati verses traveling I-71 through Cincinnati.  I-471 could be routed up current I-71 from the Mt. Adams interchange to I-275 in Sycamore Township.  Ft. Washington Way could be I-875.

However, this will not happen.  I believe the plan for these bridges is to place I-75 on the new bridge and keep I-71 on the original one after refurbishing–which, according to "seicer" , will put the merge/split in Covington around the Pike/12th Street interchange.  The original bridge would be re-striped to three lanes above and below to allow for a shoulder/emergency lane.

No matter what decisions are made, there will be a backup somewhere on I-75/I-71 in Covington or Cincinnati because of the bridge(s).  It is the shortest way to go through Cincinnati because I-275 is not much of a bypass as one would have to travel 43 miles west of the city or 41 miles east of the city to go from one I-75 interchange to the other.  It is 23 miles taking I-75 through the city.  I-275 is probably a good bypass for I-71 traffic as I mentioned above.  Basically, I-275 is a commuter loop for Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky residents, and not designed for bypassing a mid-sized city.

[Ted$8roadFan]

That said, it seems like I-71 could be routed down I-471 And then I-275 to take some of the traffic away from that bridge. (Then you make that connector between the two I-471 I guess if you want to be anal about it. I think it's called Fort Washington Way.) I don't know if that just moves the bottleneck further south, but it seems like it's easier to deal with bottlenecks on land.

The main issue with routing I-71 along I-275 and I-471 is the fact that the current I-275 EB to I-471 NB ramp (74B) is only one lane.  This regularly backs up almost to the Wilder interchange (77) during rush hours.  Without improving the ramps, if I-71 was re-routed that way, the backups would probably extend to the Licking River (Poweleit) bridge or maybe the Taylor Mill interchange (79) because of the traffic that exits at the Wilder interchange.  One should see the backups on I-275 EB in the afternoon–slow traffic from I-75 all the way to I-471.

A possibility to re-route I-71 would be to move the routing on I-275 around the east side of Cincinnati (co-signed, of course so money could be saved not changing exit numbers).  It is only 10 extra miles traveling I-275 around Cincinnati verses traveling I-71 through Cincinnati.  I-471 could be routed up current I-71 from the Mt. Adams interchange to I-275 in Sycamore Township.  Ft. Washington Way could be I-875.

However, this will not happen.  I believe the plan for these bridges is to place I-75 on the new bridge and keep I-71 on the original one after refurbishing–which, according to "seicer" , will put the merge/split in Covington around the Pike/12th Street interchange.  The original bridge would be re-striped to three lanes above and below to allow for a shoulder/emergency lane.

No matter what decisions are made, there will be a backup somewhere on I-75/I-71 in Covington or Cincinnati because of the bridge(s).  It is the shortest way to go through Cincinnati because I-275 is not much of a bypass as one would have to travel 43 miles west of the city or 41 miles east of the city to go from one I-75 interchange to the other.  It is 23 miles taking I-75 through the city.  I-275 is probably a good bypass for I-71 traffic as I mentioned above.  Basically, I-275 is a commuter loop for Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky residents, and not designed for bypassing a mid-sized city.

I'm guessing 275 was not designed as a loop rather than a bypass due to the topography of thr region.

[seicer]

The new bridge will be for interstate traffic only, while the old bridge will be for local traffic: https://brentspencebridgecorridor.com/new-bridge/

[CtrlAltDel]

The new bridge will be for interstate traffic only, while the old bridge will be for local traffic: https://brentspencebridgecorridor.com/new-bridge/

Shows you how out of touch I am. I thought this weird mix was still the deal:


But it's been replaced, as you note, with the more intuitive:

[vtk]

Changing the route numbers on the existing highways isn't going to go much to improve congestion, because generally drivers take the most direct route, or take a less direct route to avoid congestion, regardless of the route numbers. Computer navigation won't be affected. Drivers making their own informed decisions by looking at a map won't be affected. The only drivers that would follow the new route would be those who read the freeway signs yet don't look at maps, which IME is a fairly small proportion of drivers.

[amroad17]

[/quote]

That said, it seems like I-71 could be routed down I-471 And then I-275 to take some of the traffic away from that bridge. (Then you make that connector between the two I-471 I guess if you want to be anal about it. I think it's called Fort Washington Way.) I don't know if that just moves the bottleneck further south, but it seems like it's easier to deal with bottlenecks on land.

The main issue with routing I-71 along I-275 and I-471 is the fact that the current I-275 EB to I-471 NB ramp (74B) is only one lane.  This regularly backs up almost to the Wilder interchange (77) during rush hours.  Without improving the ramps, if I-71 was re-routed that way, the backups would probably extend to the Licking River (Poweleit) bridge or maybe the Taylor Mill interchange (79) because of the traffic that exits at the Wilder interchange.  One should see the backups on I-275 EB in the afternoon–slow traffic from I-75 all the way to I-471.

A possibility to re-route I-71 would be to move the routing on I-275 around the east side of Cincinnati (co-signed, of course so money could be saved not changing exit numbers).  It is only 10 extra miles traveling I-275 around Cincinnati verses traveling I-71 through Cincinnati.  I-471 could be routed up current I-71 from the Mt. Adams interchange to I-275 in Sycamore Township.  Ft. Washington Way could be I-875.

However, this will not happen.  I believe the plan for these bridges is to place I-75 on the new bridge and keep I-71 on the original one after refurbishing–which, according to "seicer" , will put the merge/split in Covington around the Pike/12th Street interchange.  The original bridge would be re-striped to three lanes above and below to allow for a shoulder/emergency lane.

No matter what decisions are made, there will be a backup somewhere on I-75/I-71 in Covington or Cincinnati because of the bridge(s).  It is the shortest way to go through Cincinnati because I-275 is not much of a bypass as one would have to travel 43 miles west of the city or 41 miles east of the city to go from one I-75 interchange to the other.  It is 23 miles taking I-75 through the city.  I-275 is probably a good bypass for I-71 traffic as I mentioned above.  Basically, I-275 is a commuter loop for Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky residents, and not designed for bypassing a mid-sized city.

I'm guessing 275 was not designed as a loop rather than a bypass due to the topography of thr region.

On the western side of Cincinnati is somewhat the issue.  I-275 around the east side of Cincinnati is in the best routing that it currently is as it serves Loveland, Milford, the Beechmont area, and Coney Island.  Eastgate came to be because of I-275.

Originally, I-275 was to be built from I-71 in Sycamore Township to I-74 in Whitewater Township (as seen in the 1962 Rand McNally maps).  It was decided to build I-275 as a circumferential freeway sometime after this.

I-275 around the west side of Cincinnati had one plan where it would go south around the hill at current Exit 9 of I-74 and cross the Ohio just west of Cleves.  It then would have paralleled KY 237 and met current I-275 just west of the Hebron interchange curving east towards the airport.  This was deemed "too hilly"  and the current routing was selected as it would serve Lawrenceburg, IN. as well as having a "less hilly"  drive for motorists.

So, yes, topography had much to do with the decisions made concerning I-275 west of Cincinnati.  Great for local commuters, not so great for long-distance drivers wanting to bypass Cincinnati.

The new bridge will be for interstate traffic only, while the old bridge will be for local traffic: https://brentspencebridgecorridor.com/new-bridge/

So there will be more ramps built on the Cincinnati side to accommodate I-71 traffic? 

Also, the bridge footprint has been reduced from 172 feet to 107 feet and the Cincinnati city council still wants it reduced more?

Changing the route numbers on the existing highways isn't going to go much to improve congestion, because generally drivers take the most direct route, or take a less direct route to avoid congestion, regardless of the route numbers. Computer navigation won't be affected. Drivers making their own informed decisions by looking at a map won't be affected. The only drivers that would follow the new route would be those who read the freeway signs yet don't look at maps, which IME is a fairly small proportion of drivers.

Totally agree.  This is the logic I always used to avoid Chicago or New York City if I did not have to be in those cities.

[vtk]

Also, the bridge footprint has been reduced from 172 feet to 107 feet and the Cincinnati city council still wants it reduced more?

The city wants the footprint of the Ohio approach interchange complex to be reduced.