Details here...
https://www.fox19.com/2020/01/22/odot-study-cincinnati-eastern-bypass-is-no-go-whats-next-brent-spence-bridge-alternative
In summary, the Ohio Department of Transportation says a new Interstate bypass on the east side of Cincinnati is costly, wasteful, unneeded, and environmentally unsound.
QuoteRep. Tom Brinkman, R-Mount Lookout, is a longtime supporter of the Eastern Bypass and pushed for the ODOT study. Brinkman said the results were less thorough than he would have liked.
In the end, moving forward with the Eastern Bypass will require leadership, Brinkman told The Enquirer.
"You always have the small-minded people who poke holes in everything," he said.
Pushed for a study, got the study, doesn't like the study's conclusion, resorts to name-calling. What was that about leadership?
Seems like another repeat of the proposed Washington bypass failure.
Meanwhile, I'm hearing that it's not dead in Kentucky yet. Details may be forthcoming in or after the new governor's budget address.
I-471 and I-275 already exist... but I guess too much of them are in the "wrong state" despite being mere single-digit miles away.
QuoteThe bypass would affect 16.6 square miles of land, including 4,195 acres of farmland and a large cemetery with approximately 1,000 graves.
Well that's interesting. They couldn't shift it a little bit to avoid that?
Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2020, 02:04:34 PM
Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
No, because I-275 already exists.
How about a nice radial highway on the east side of Cincinnati, rather than a circumferential one? If Charlotte can do it, so can Cincinnati!
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2020, 02:04:34 PM
Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
Nope. Though coming from the north central part of Ohio, if this bypass existed I would likely ignore I-75 in Ohio altogether and go through Columbus and take I-71 to access the bypass.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 23, 2020, 02:33:56 PM
How about a nice radial highway on the east side of Cincinnati, rather than a circumferential one? If Charlotte can do it, so can Cincinnati!
I think this has been proposed from time to time, but there's just too many obstacles. There's a lot of built-up areas and valleys.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2020, 02:04:34 PM
Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
I can't remember ever using I-275 - always went right straight thru on I-75.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2020, 02:04:34 PM
Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
No. Very few of them take I-275 now. From I-75 at the north to I-75 at the south, taking I-275 is about 18 miles longer (whether you go around to the west or to the east). During rush hour, it can be faster, especially if you take the Western loop.
All that bypass will do is introduce sprawl to rural areas. It should be noted that one of the strong supporters of the bypass is a home-builder.
I will use I-275 to get from I-74 to I-75 instead of going through downtown.
If I'm going to Dayton or points north, I avoid Cincinnati together and use US 68 to cross the river and then find some other route (OH 73 works) to get to I-75.
Quote from: frankenroad on January 23, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
No. Very few of them take I-275 now.
I'm definitely in that category, since most of the time I pass through Cincinnati around 11am-1pm and rarely have any trouble going right down 75 itself. One of the only times I can remember having issue was when there was an accident on the Kentucky side backing up southbound traffic across the Brent-Spence and beyond the 75/71 split, and I avoided most of that by going 71-471-275.
I've still never be around the west half of 275, so maybe I'll do that sometime just to clinch it. I've used various parts of the eastern side when visiting a friend who lived on that side of the metro, but the only time I can remember using 275 to bypass Cincinnati on a through trough trip was during a snowstorm, when traveling northbound toward I-71 and didn't want any part of trying to go through downtown in those conditions. I
I-275 is not really a bypass for I-75. Originally, by looking at some early 1960's Rand McNally maps, I-275 only went from I-74 to I-71. I believe, though, that I-275 was envisioned to be built encircling Cincinnati--although the western part, at first, was supposed to cross the Ohio River in the Cleves/North Bend/Addyston area and follow KY 237 to where Exit 8 is now, following the current route east from there. It is a pretty good hill climb from the Ohio to Hebron, KY, though, which may the reason I-275 was routed the way it is now.
I-275, on the other hand, is a useful bypass for I-71 traffic. It is only 10 miles farther taking I-275 around the east side of Cincinnati verses taking I-71 through the city. It is signed 65 mph the entire way compared to I-71 signed 55 mph from I-275 in Kentucky to the Montgomery Road interchange (Exit 12) in Kenwood, where it becomes signed 65 mph. Of course, there are some usual rush hour backups (in the AM from Exit 57 to I-71 and vice versa in the PM, along with some near the Eastgate area, Exit 63-OH 32), however, during off-peak hours, I-275 moves.
This outer bypass, whether around the east of Cincinnati or, in some reports around 20 years ago, around Cincinnati, does have too many obstacles, as bandit957 has said. We both live in Northern Kentucky and have read about this bypass idea and the one from long ago encircling Cincinnati--an outer-outer bypass. That one would have used the Markland Dam and the Harsha Bridge near Maysville, KY as the river crossings. That bypass would have crossed I-75 near Middletown/Franklin, OH and near Williamstown, KY. Talk about having a big idea!
Yes, Cincinnati traffic can be somewhat hectic at times but it's not like Washington, DC, LA, or, from what some have posted, Seattle. What is here currently is probably the best it will get--save for a possible Brent Spence Bridge improvement.
I read once that I-275 was extended to the west just because they wanted to include Indiana.
As for the full bypass that was proposed about 20 or 25 years ago, I read that it was abandoned because the man who was pushing for it turned out to be a big con man.
For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge)
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2020, 12:12:39 PM
For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge)
What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:21:21 PM
What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.
Perhaps it's changed since then, but the concept I remember had I-75 south and I-71 south on the top level of the new bridge, I-75 north and local traffic south on the bottom level of the new bridge, I-71 north on the top level of the existing bridge, and local traffic north on the bottom level of the existing bridge.
Quote from: Buck87 on January 24, 2020, 03:56:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:21:21 PM
What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.
Perhaps it's changed since then, but the concept I remember had I-75 south and I-71 south on the top level of the new bridge, I-75 north and local traffic south on the bottom level of the new bridge, I-71 north on the top level of the existing bridge, and local traffic north on the bottom level of the existing bridge.
OMG, that concept would just blow drivers' minds around here! :-D They wouldn't know which way to go (Am I supposed to go on the old bridge or the new one--I don't know!)
However, reading your comment
Buck87, to me that would work perfectly.
Quote from: amroad17 on January 25, 2020, 07:03:56 AM
OMG, that concept would just blow drivers' minds around here! :-D They wouldn't know which way to go (Am I supposed to go on the old bridge or the new one--I don't know!)
However, reading your comment Buck87, to me that would work perfectly.
Found a pic of the configuration I was thinking of:
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10737942/bsbconfiguraiton*750xx1256-709-27-0.png)
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2020, 12:12:39 PM
For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge)
What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.
I did read through the options they are looking at.
Brent Spence is already functionally obsolete (when they removed the shoulders) and while it appears they would put them back in as part of a new bridge deal, that would make it functionally current, but my issue is that the bridge has been "overused" for many years. It's current AADT way exceeds its design specification. Bridges have lives, this one has been consuming its life in an accelerated fashion. Yes, reducing the AADT will cut the overall sprung weight, but how much life would you get back in doing so and is it worth it?
I would think a new freeway from the southern I-71/75 split near Walton and connecting to I-275 near Cold Spring would be very useful and heavily used.
I could even see I-71 being rerouted along this new route and then following I-471, removing the I-71/75 concurrency entirely. Now there's a thought!
Quote from: webny99 on January 25, 2020, 05:13:29 PM
I would think a new freeway from the southern I-71/75 split near Walton and connecting to I-275 near Cold Spring would be very useful and heavily used.
I could even see I-71 being rerouted along this new route and then following I-471, removing the I-71/75 concurrency entirely. Now there's a thought!
They were talking about doing this years ago, but it just wasn't doable, since much of the area was too built up.
Quote from: edwaleni on January 25, 2020, 04:14:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2020, 12:12:39 PM
For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge)
What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.
I did read through the options they are looking at.
Brent Spence is already functionally obsolete (when they removed the shoulders) and while it appears they would put them back in as part of a new bridge deal, that would make it functionally current, but my issue is that the bridge has been "overused" for many years. It's current AADT way exceeds its design specification. Bridges have lives, this one has been consuming its life in an accelerated fashion. Yes, reducing the AADT will cut the overall sprung weight, but how much life would you get back in doing so and is it worth it?
That's a good point, but they'd likely rehab it to the extent needed, as was done with the Kennedy bridge after the Lincoln bridge was finished.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on January 25, 2020, 07:52:44 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 25, 2020, 04:14:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2020, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 24, 2020, 12:12:39 PM
For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge)
What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.
I did read through the options they are looking at.
Brent Spence is already functionally obsolete (when they removed the shoulders) and while it appears they would put them back in as part of a new bridge deal, that would make it functionally current, but my issue is that the bridge has been "overused" for many years. It's current AADT way exceeds its design specification. Bridges have lives, this one has been consuming its life in an accelerated fashion. Yes, reducing the AADT will cut the overall sprung weight, but how much life would you get back in doing so and is it worth it?
That's a good point, but they'd likely rehab it to the extent needed, as was done with the Kennedy bridge after the Lincoln bridge was finished.
To get more life out of the MacArthur Bridge in St Louis they (TRRA) had to remove tons of steel beams, plating and concrete decking that supported the upper deck for US-66. They calculated that the raw reduction of sprung weight bought the bridge another 70-80 years of service life.
Other cantilever bridges built in the early 1950's have been replacing the steel grid or concrete decking with the new resin based decking that is just as strong but weighs much less. Depending on how much they replace, they say it can buy a bridge another 25-30 years just by removing sprung weight.
Quote from: bandit957 on January 24, 2020, 11:12:28 AM
I read once that I-275 was extended to the west just because they wanted to include Indiana.
My brother, who was a Cincinnati resident when 275 was built, once told me that Lawrenceburg residents insisted that 275 be rerouted to provide a river crossing for their town. He thought it was a waste since it rendered the western loop of 275 impractical as a Cincinnati bypass.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2020, 02:04:34 PM
Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
As someone who has traveled through Cincinnati a lot. I-75 is usually fine until you get near the Ohio River. I-275 is already there and an out of the way bypass as it is. So I would have to say no they would stay on I-75.
The worst stretch is of course the Brent Spence Bridge. I hate that bridge.
This bypass proposal reminds me of the 225-mile Interstate 875 outer beltway once mentioned on Kurumi's 3di page: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2020, 03:58:40 PM
This bypass proposal reminds me of the 225-mile Interstate 875 outer beltway once mentioned on Kurumi's 3di page: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html.
That's utterly ridiculous was it supposed to bypass Dayton too?
Quote from: theline on January 26, 2020, 11:15:50 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on January 24, 2020, 11:12:28 AM
I read once that I-275 was extended to the west just because they wanted to include Indiana.
My brother, who was a Cincinnati resident when 275 was built, once told me that Lawrenceburg residents insisted that 275 be rerouted to provide a river crossing for their town. He thought it was a waste since it rendered the western loop of 275 impractical as a Cincinnati bypass.
It'd still have to go pretty far out and cross around North Bend, Ohio.
That area along the river's always been pretty well-developed past there between the old B&O railroad running by and US 50.
I have no idea exactly what route it would have taken, other than this from the 875 page on kurumi.com: A 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.
The Ghostbuster: I doubt it was ever a serious proposal, probably someone's attempt at Fictional Highways.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 28, 2020, 05:03:02 PM
I have no idea exactly what route it would have taken, other than this from the 875 page on kurumi.com: A 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.
The Ghostbuster: I doubt it was ever a serious proposal, probably someone's attempt at Fictional Highways.
I remember articles in the Kentucky Post back then that seemed to be cheering this proposal. It was a serious proposal for a while.
Quote from: bandit957 on January 25, 2020, 06:47:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 25, 2020, 05:13:29 PM
I would think a new freeway from the southern I-71/75 split near Walton and connecting to I-275 near Cold Spring would be very useful and heavily used.
I could even see I-71 being rerouted along this new route and then following I-471, removing the I-71/75 concurrency entirely. Now there's a thought!
They were talking about doing this years ago, but it just wasn't doable, since much of the area was too built up.
What about running I-71 on I-275
and I-471, and moving the I-471 designation to the section between the current 71/471 interchange and I-75? It wouldn't be a new route, but it would be like rerouting MO 76 onto MO 465- recommending the larger-capacity alternative.
Quote from: X99 on January 28, 2020, 07:51:12 PM
What about running I-71 on I-275 and I-471, and moving the I-471 designation to the section between the current 71/471 interchange and I-75?
They might as well, because the signs inexplicably tell airport traffic to use that route anyway.