I-67: TN, KY, IN

[silverback1065]

I still fail to see why this is needed, either as a free road or a toll road.

You fail to see why it's needed because it isn't needed.

[andy]

The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million, not $600 million:

By way of explanation, but not necessarily endorsement;

The new route is significantly different;
Travelling west of Jasper instead of east is likely a substantial savings;
Connecting to Petersburg saves another bridge over the East Fork White River;
Coal mining in south Daviess (Indiana) County would create subsidence issues and is avoided by the new route.

[Indyroads]

I still fail to see why this is needed, either as a free road or a toll road.

You fail to see why it's needed because it isn't needed.

Interstate... Not needed. but an upgrade tothe US231 corridor north of I-64 is needed to remove traffic from the congested city streets. This could be done with 2 or 4 lane bypasses but the coties of Loogootee and Jasper still need to be served by US-231...

The likelihood that I-67 will happen south of Indianapolis is slim to none (except maybe to connect Dothan and Panama City to the interstate system, but even that is questionable.)

[silverback1065]

4 lane divided highway is good enough

[andy]

4 lane divided highway is good enough

As one who uses this part of US231 extensively, I agree.

But I've heard the current plan is to upgrade to "super 2" in/around 2017.

[silverback1065]

A super 2 would be fine for a few yrs

[SW Indiana]

At one point, a few years ago, INDOT had plans to upgrade US 231 between Haysville and Loogootee to a Super 2, but that got cut back to just realigning some intersections/cutting hills down (Truelove Church Road, 650 S and Webb, etc,) but even that was eliminated.

It's frustrating to see this small part of the state continuously getting the shaft on needed projects such as but not limited to: US 231 bypass around Jasper/Huntingburg, US 50 upgrade to 4 lanes from Washington to Loogootee, the above mentioned project, etc....

[Grzrd]

This July 14 Messenger-Inquirer article (behind $1.00 paywall) reports that promoters of the project have stopped referring to it as "I-67" in favor of "Mid-State Corridor ("M-SC")" and that the M-SC should be started in the next five to ten years ... :

... the Mid-State Corridor -- formerly called I-67 -- from Pike County, Indiana, to the Natcher Bridge east of Owensboro should be started in the next five to 10 years ....
The promoters of the project, including Owensboro and Daviess County officials, dropped the I-67 name because only federal officials can create an interstate highway.
But Menke said the group still wants to see I-67.
"Our goal is to get an interstate designation once we start building the highway[/b]," he said. "That interstate symbol is very important to communities." ....

The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million

This Feb. 20 article reports that the Mid-State Corridor/ Interstate 67 ("I-67") has slowly moved up the ladder to become a Tier 2 project, a development which I-67 promoters contend means that it is now closer to reality:

The group trying to get an interstate connecting Dubois County to Indianapolis has learned it is closer to a reality.
INDOT told the I-67 corporation the interstate is a Tier 2 project.
They've also learned the US-231 bridge has met interstate standards. That's the bridge they would like to use to connect to Kentucky.
The interstate is also called the Mid-State Corridor.
Project leader Hank Menke says he may not see the interstate in his lifetime, but knows the county needs it.
Menke says they are now in the process of trying to figure out how to fund the road.

[silverback1065]

This July 14 Messenger-Inquirer article (behind $1.00 paywall) reports that promoters of the project have stopped referring to it as "I-67" in favor of "Mid-State Corridor ("M-SC")" and that the M-SC should be started in the next five to ten years ... :

... the Mid-State Corridor -- formerly called I-67 -- from Pike County, Indiana, to the Natcher Bridge east of Owensboro should be started in the next five to 10 years ....
The promoters of the project, including Owensboro and Daviess County officials, dropped the I-67 name because only federal officials can create an interstate highway.
But Menke said the group still wants to see I-67.
"Our goal is to get an interstate designation once we start building the highway[/b]," he said. "That interstate symbol is very important to communities." ....

The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million

This Feb. 20 article reports that the Mid-State Corridor/ Interstate 67 ("I-67") has slowly moved up the ladder to become a Tier 2 project, a development which I-67 promoters contend means that it is now closer to reality:

The group trying to get an interstate connecting Dubois County to Indianapolis has learned it is closer to a reality.
INDOT told the I-67 corporation the interstate is a Tier 2 project.
They've also learned the US-231 bridge has met interstate standards. That's the bridge they would like to use to connect to Kentucky.
The interstate is also called the Mid-State Corridor.
Project leader Hank Menke says he may not see the interstate in his lifetime, but knows the county needs it.
Menke says they are now in the process of trying to figure out how to fund the road.

Why are they so obsessed with getting this to be an interstate in southern Indiana? what's wrong with a simple rural divided highway? this interstate is useless!  should we now upgrade every conceivable corridor in the state to interstate standards?  Why not make us 50 through Indiana an interstate or us 30?  why isn't 69 good enough? from an indiana perspective, this project should literally be the absolute lowest of low priority, even lower than that asinine "commerce connector" politicians keep bringing up.  They can't even figure out how to pay for the remaining gap in 69 in Indiana, now they want another interstate? The communities that 67 would connect, at least in Indiana don't warrant an interstate at all.

[jnewkirk77]

You're right - the interstate isn't needed.  Same with the proposed upgrade of the Natcher Parkway to an I-65 spur, which my local reps seem to think is up to $150 million worth spending (never mind that the money doesn't exist).

KYTC needs to save about $149.5 million and petition AASHTO to move the 231 designation over to the parkway, and INDOT should call the MSC 231 as well. It would be cheaper over the long term, yet do the same basic thing.

[codyg1985]

US 231 does need to be upgraded to a four-lane between Dale/I-64 and Loogootee, but not an interstate.

[hbelkins]

You're right - the interstate isn't needed.  Same with the proposed upgrade of the Natcher Parkway to an I-65 spur, which my local reps seem to think is up to $150 million worth spending (never mind that the money doesn't exist).

KYTC needs to save about $149.5 million and petition AASHTO to move the 231 designation over to the parkway, and INDOT should call the MSC 231 as well. It would be cheaper over the long term, yet do the same basic thing.

What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.

[silverback1065]

You're right - the interstate isn't needed.  Same with the proposed upgrade of the Natcher Parkway to an I-65 spur, which my local reps seem to think is up to $150 million worth spending (never mind that the money doesn't exist).

KYTC needs to save about $149.5 million and petition AASHTO to move the 231 designation over to the parkway, and INDOT should call the MSC 231 as well. It would be cheaper over the long term, yet do the same basic thing.

What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.

The rules are there for safety and many other purposes.  what really needs to happen is people need to stop thinking interstates are the end all be all to solve all problems

[ARMOURERERIC]

Somebody in the road planning department played too much D&D in their youth and dreams of someday having an interstate map of Indy look like a chaos symbol.

[hbelkins]

The rules are there for safety and many other purposes.

As I was saying...

What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.

Kentucky's four-lane interstates are no more safe than the parkways. The speed limit is 70 on both classifications of routes. I doubt you could tell me if you were on an interstate or a parkway if I plopped you down in the middle of one of our limited-access four-lane routes.

[silverback1065]

The rules are there for safety and many other purposes.

As I was saying...

What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.

Kentucky's four-lane interstates are no more safe than the parkways. The speed limit is 70 on both classifications of routes. I doubt you could tell me if you were on an interstate or a parkway if I plopped you down in the middle of one of our limited-access four-lane routes.

I'm not doubting you on that, I know some of the interchanges are substandard for interstates.  I'm not too familiar with your state, what about the parkways makes them not allowed to be interstates?  I'm curious.   

[hbelkins]

My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...

A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.

[silverback1065]

My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...

A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.

you're right, they should relax their standards, those all seem nit picky.  One thing I've always wondered, why aren't Kentucky's parkways signed as state routes or us highways instead?  a lot of them run parallel to one or both.

[codyg1985]

My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...

A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.

you're right, they should relax their standards, those all seem nit picky.  One thing I've always wondered, why aren't Kentucky's parkways signed as state routes or us highways instead?  a lot of them run parallel to one or both.

I think they carry secret state route designations, and they used to be tolled, so the US highways had to stay on their alignments to provide the free alternative.

[billtm]

My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...

A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.

you're right, they should relax their standards, those all seem nit picky.  One thing I've always wondered, why aren't Kentucky's parkways signed as state routes or us highways instead?  a lot of them run parallel to one or both.

I think they carry secret state route designations, and they used to be tolled, so the US highways had to stay on their alignments to provide the free alternative.

Yeah, they carry the designations KY-9000, KY-9001, ... , KY-9009.

[froggie]

My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits.

Shoulder width too.

[hbelkins]

Shoulder width too.

Inside shoulder, perhaps. I think the outside shoulders are compliant.

[Grzrd]

what about the parkways makes them not allowed to be interstates?

This May, 2014 Executive Summary includes a "Table ES-2 Deficiencies Summary" for the Audubon Parkway, the Natcher Parkway, and US 60 in Daviess County (pp. 18-22/23 of pdf: pp. 16-20 of document).

[Grzrd]

This Feb. 20 article reports that the Mid-State Corridor/ Interstate 67 ("I-67") has slowly moved up the ladder to become a Tier 2 project, a development which I-67 promoters contend means that it is now closer to reality:

The group trying to get an interstate connecting Dubois County to Indianapolis has learned it is closer to a reality.
INDOT told the I-67 corporation the interstate is a Tier 2 project.
They've also learned the US-231 bridge has met interstate standards. That's the bridge they would like to use to connect to Kentucky.
The interstate is also called the Mid-State Corridor.

Why are they so obsessed with getting this to be an interstate in southern Indiana? what's wrong with a simple rural divided highway? this interstate is useless!

They continue to plug away.  This article reports that Dubois Strong, the county's economic development organization, has committed $10,000 over a two year period to the Mid-State Corridor project:

Dubois Strong has committed $10,000 over a two year period to the Mid-State Corridor project, formerly called the Interstate 67 project.
This venture would link Dubois County directly to Owensboro and Indianapolis, connecting the county via the proposed new road's intersection with I-69 ....
the funding will support the group's efforts for the next two years and will be used for engineering work and studying possible ways to pay for the project, such as a tax, tolls or local government involvement ....
After the publication of the Cambridge Study in 2012, the Mid-State Corridor group had findings that indicated the corridor would greatly impact the local economy and address safety issues on U.S. 231. The corridor would use the improved U.S. 231 and then connect to I-69 through the Mid-State Corridor.
The money will be used for pre-engineering work and design and bring in experts to determine how the road can be funded ....
Dubois Strong, the county's economic development organization, is a public-private partnership devoted to fostering economic growth to drive retention and expansion of existing local business while attracting new employers and supporting entrepreneurs, thereby strengthening the county's competitive position and generating prosperity for all residents.

Here is a link to the Cambridge Systematics October, 2012 I-67 Corridor Feasibility Study referenced in the article:

http://www.camsys.com/pubs/I67_corr_oct12.pdf

[froggie]

I read that I-67 study.  They claim that it would provide congestion relief for I-65 yet their own traffic projection numbers suggest there would be minimal (or in some locations ZERO) relief.