Brent Spence Bridge - Closed

Irwin20

Well-known member
2.6 billion last estimate to replace, that was 2 years ago. My wife’s commute to Florence,KY is getting a little longer.
 

PantherProud

Well-known member
2.6 billion last estimate to replace, that was 2 years ago. My wife’s commute to Florence,KY is getting a little longer.

And I read that the price goes up roughly $70M every year they delay. Though I’m sure that’s for repair, not total replace.
 

Auggie

Well-known member
I think it should be a combo of federal government, state governments, and user fees/tolls. Someone told me that after I-95 along the east coast I-75 is the most important north/south highway in the country with a lot of truck traffic as it links the MI based auto industry and Canada to the areas of the country just west of the Appalachians. Those big trucks pound that outdated bridge so something needs to be done or else it could basically fall into the river like I-35W bridge in Minnesota.
 

az0217t

Well-known member
To alleviate a lot of the traffic and wear and tear on the existing I-75/I-71 bridge over the Ohio river, there should be a massive charge for any truck that wants to use the bridge. If they don't want to pay the fee go around Cincinnati by using I-275. We were told back in the 60's or 70's that I-275 was being constructed just for that purpose. As a by-pass.
 

CedarBuck92

Active member
To alleviate a lot of the traffic and wear and tear on the existing I-75/I-71 bridge over the Ohio river, there should be a massive charge for any truck that wants to use the bridge. If they don't want to pay the fee go around Cincinnati by using I-275. We were told back in the 60's or 70's that I-275 was being constructed just for that purpose. As a by-pass.
How massive are you thinking?
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
To alleviate a lot of the traffic and wear and tear on the existing I-75/I-71 bridge over the Ohio river, there should be a massive charge for any truck that wants to use the bridge. If they don't want to pay the fee go around Cincinnati by using I-275. We were told back in the 60's or 70's that I-275 was being constructed just for that purpose. As a by-pass.
The interstate highway system was built for the truckers, not for you to visit granny or your Florida vacation.
 

az0217t

Well-known member
The interstate highway system was built for the truckers, not for you to visit granny or your Florida vacation.
WOW ! Welcome to life. Things change. I know what the interstate highway system was originally designed for, but we have evolved and changed. We are reaping the rewards of shortsighted highway designers and politicians that decided to run the highways through the heart of metropolitan areas and until there is an additional bridge added this problem will not go away.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
WOW ! Welcome to life. Things change. I know what the interstate highway system was originally designed for, but we have evolved and changed. We are reaping the rewards of shortsighted highway designers and politicians that decided to run the highways through the heart of metropolitan areas and until there is an additional bridge added this problem will not go away.
Then the fee (or inconvenience) logically should be for passenger cars.
 

Auggie

Well-known member
Many bridge tolls are charged based off of the number of axels on a vehicle, the thinking being the more axels in use the heavier the load. Note that the 471 bridge will also have to also start to charge a toll to keep everyone from using that as an alternative. You would be surprised how many trucks will all of sudden start to use the 275 by-pass if they have to pay $s to cross the Ohio via downtown.
 

az0217t

Well-known member
Then the fee (or inconvenience) logically should be for passenger cars.
Your "logic" is mind boggling. Let's try this "logic." Let's just ban all cars from the interstate highways because the highways were built for moving products by trucks. Yeah, that will work. Nothing could go wrong with that idea. Once again. WOW !
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Your "logic" is mind boggling. Let's try this "logic." Let's just ban all cars from the interstate highways because the highways were built for moving products by trucks. Yeah, that will work. Nothing could go wrong with that idea. Once again. WOW !
No need, but they did and still do exist mainly for commerce. Sorry that inconveniences you occasionally.
 

CedarBuck92

Active member
Charge whatever amount that it would take to encourage the trucking companies to go around.
IF we are going that far then just ban trucks on the bridge. I am not opposed to charging a toll but if the entire point is to make it so costly to use the bridge then just tell them they aren't allowed to use it.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
IF we are going that far then just ban trucks on the bridge. I am not opposed to charging a toll but if the entire point is to make it so costly to use the bridge then just tell them they aren't allowed to use it.
You do understand enough about the basics of Economics to understand who will pay the bulk of those additional costs, correct?
 

Auggie

Well-known member
You do understand enough about the basics of Economics to understand who will pay the bulk of those additional costs, correct?
Or the truckers will find a different route. In northern Ohio truckers will jump off of the Ohio turnpike, especially right after toll increases. Route 2, while only 2 lanes each way and poorly maintained, gets a ton of alternative turnpike traffic. Also trucks jump off of the turnpike and grab the 480 southern bypass to CLE and deal with arguably the worst traffic in the city just to shave off some $s.

But things are different when you are dealing with a major geographical component like a large river crossing. The bridges to span these things are not simple engineering jobs so the costs are significant and options limited for secondary crossings limited. There are also challenges when dealing with two different states and the unique philosophies about how to pay for these things. I would think Northern Kentucky needs this more than Southwest Ohio but then again the metro airport is located in Northern KY. Either way a new bridge is needed and everyone needs to chip in to make it happen.
 

CedarBuck92

Active member
You do understand enough about the basics of Economics to understand who will pay the bulk of those additional costs, correct?
I very much do. It will be normal motorists. I promise I am not nearly as dumb as you think I am. I was simply responding to the idea of charging truckers such a high toll that they don't use it with the idea of just banning them if that is the entire point of the toll.
 

az0217t

Well-known member
Or the truckers will find a different route. In northern Ohio truckers will jump off of the Ohio turnpike, especially right after toll increases. Route 2, while only 2 lanes each way and poorly maintained, gets a ton of alternative turnpike traffic. Also trucks jump off of the turnpike and grab the 480 southern bypass to CLE and deal with arguably the worst traffic in the city just to shave off some $s.

But things are different when you are dealing with a major geographical component like a large river crossing. The bridges to span these things are not simple engineering jobs so the costs are significant and options limited for secondary crossings limited. There are also challenges when dealing with two different states and the unique philosophies about how to pay for these things. I would think Northern Kentucky needs this more than Southwest Ohio but then again the metro airport is located in Northern KY. Either way a new bridge is needed and everyone needs to chip in to make it happen.
Charge a massive toll or ban them all together ... I don't care. They just need to go around I-275 and not use the I-75/I-71 bridge. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Once the existing bridge is safe and they build an addition one then they can use them.
 
.
Top