Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment

Opticare Vision/Express Mobile Transport

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

5 Things to Know about the Brent Spence Bridge

The Brent Spence Bridge has been a focal point lately.  It has been addressed by The President of United States, politicians, and governmental departments.  The reason for all the attention is that the bridge is out of date.  It needs to be replaced by a bridge that can adequately handle its daily load of almost 200,000 vehicles.

To raise the funds for the construction of the new bridge (excess of $500 million) a toll has been suggested.  The bridge is already congested, so the drive time related to adding a toll has commuters rolling their eyes.

In order to collect information on the bridge I turned to Mr. Brandon Seiter who is the District Bridge Engineer with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.  Mr. Seiter was extremely helpful with his boundless knowledge on the bridge supplying FTM with factoids, and a link to the Brent Spence project website.  Here are the facts that Brandon provided:
·         The bridge opened in 1963.
·         The bridge is a double-deck steel thru truss.
·         The main truss spans of the bridge are 1,736 feet long; the longest span is 830 feet long.
·         The bridge has an Average Daily Traffic, or ADT, of approximately 175,000 vehicles (2012).  The bridge was designed to handle half of that traffic.
·         The bridge is structurally sound; congestion, traffic safety, and functionality are issues though.
·         The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and Ohio Department of Transportation are currently collaborating on studies for a proposed new bridge, improvements to the existing bridge, and improvements to the I-75/71 corridors in Northern Kentucky and Ohio.

I did some research on my own, and found that The National Bridge Inventory lists the Brent Spence Bridge as functionally obsolete due to the capacity, sight distance, and safety concerns associated with its current configuration.  Hearing that a bridge is obsolete makes me a little uneasy, so it was good to learn from Brandon that it is structurally sound.  While there is no threat of the bridge collapsing into the Ohio River, the bridge is still unsafe.  The danger ranges from the lack of a shoulder on either level, to the limited sight that is available while traversing the bridge.  It will be interesting to see the proposals for the new bridge, and even more interesting to learn how that bridge will be paid for.

I want to thank Brandon Seiter for taking the time to supply the facts for this article.  If you want more details and a more in depth look at the Brent Spence project, here is the link again. 


  1. It should be noted that the Brent Spence Bridge as part of the Federal Interstate Highway System should be replaced with Federal Highway Dollars.

    However, as of this writing, this regions representatives in the U.S. Congress--Senators Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Congressman Tom Massie have yet to sponsor any legislation for the repair or replacement of the bridge. As a result, locals are talking about "tolls". I would suggest that if you are against tolls that you directly contact McConnell, Rand Paul and Tom Massie and ask them to find the funds.

  2. My understanding is that if they do tolls, they will be strictly digital. License plate readers and electronic passes are the two options for the digital collection of the tolls. Seems that the realize toll booths would never work.
    What I would like to know, is where are the monies collected from the gasoline taxes that are supposed to pay for the federal highway system?

    1. The money from the gas tax is only 18% of whats sold. Plus it is not the governments responsibility for infrastructure needs clearly stated on the FHWA website. So, no, and toll broths are already being used in LA and have little to no argument over traffic other than they have to pay the toll. And they argue since the right information isn't understood by the public that the state is the sole liability of development. Yes the Government should do more since the gas tax has been too old and cars have become more efficient, but the increase in cost the government will never be able to cover it. state governments either directly take care or have allocate the responsibility to another branch. Thus it is the states fault for not planning for the replacement and the lack of funding if you want to point fingers. so taxing is the fairest only costing the bridge users. Also look up HOV lanes, newer technology has and continue to be implemented.

      Sincerely, A