I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[Avalanchez71]

he's starting to sound like a bot now 

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

I have been in and through Indiana several times.

[edwaleni]

he's starting to sound like a bot now 

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

I have been in and through Indiana several times.

We get it. You don't like I-69. You have posted as such since you joined AARoads in 2013.

[Daniel Fiddler]

he's starting to sound like a bot now 

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

I have been in and through Indiana several times.

We get it. You don't like I-69. You have posted as such since you joined AARoads in 2013.

I don't get why anyone would be against this connection of I-69, even if they were vehemently against every other portion.  I-69 is already built is Kentucky except for said bridge and approach and 80% built in Indiana.  US 41 needs relief.  Why oppose this segment?

[sprjus4]

^ Because US-41 and I-70 was an "adequate" connection between Indianapolis and Evansville.

IMO, it's a very reasonable highway connection to the system. I-69 also provided four lane access between Evansville and Bloomington which did not previously exist, and upgraded Bloomington to Indianapolis which needed it regardless due to high traffic volumes.

[mrose]

I'd think even the most modest layman would see a proposed interstate on a map between Evansville and Indianapolis via Bloomington and think it makes quite a lot of sense.

[edwaleni]

As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

[abqtraveler]

^ Because US-41 and I-70 was an "adequate" connection between Indianapolis and Evansville.

IMO, it's a very reasonable highway connection to the system. I-69 also provided four lane access between Evansville and Bloomington which did not previously exist, and upgraded Bloomington to Indianapolis which needed it regardless due to high traffic volumes.

INDOT already had plans to upgrade SR-37 to a full freeway between Indy and Bloomington before the I-69 extension came into the picture. It only made sense to continue I-69 over new terrain to tie into (the former) I-164 outside of E-Ville.

Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

[Rick Powell]

Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

If it's eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the state will have no choice but to look at options to keep it open, advertise for an individual or organization to relocate it at no purchase cost (but relocation at their expense), and if the first 2 are unsuccessful, to make measurements and photos for the National Archives before removing/demolishing the bridge.

[Revive 755]

IMO, it's a very reasonable highway connection to the system. I-69 also provided four lane access between Evansville and Bloomington which did not previously exist, and upgraded Bloomington to Indianapolis which needed it regardless due to high traffic volumes.

Using the US 41 corridor would have helped start a more direct, higher quality Chicago - Nashville corridor - something that would be nice to have right now with the closures in Indianapolis and that work zone is causing all the fatal wrecks on I-24 near the Ohio River Bridge.  Though I think routing I-69 via Bloomington was better than adding more traffic to I-70, and IMHO Bloomington could have used better access from the south.

[hbelkins]

Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

If it's eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the state will have no choice but to look at options to keep it open, advertise for an individual or organization to relocate it at no purchase cost (but relocation at their expense), and if the first 2 are unsuccessful, to make measurements and photos for the National Archives before removing/demolishing the bridge.

For whatever reason, they're talking about keeping the older bridge and doing away with the 1960s-era newer bridge.

[Rick Powell]

For whatever reason, they're talking about keeping the older bridge and doing away with the 1960s-era newer bridge.

I'm not sure what the case is here. Anything over 50 years old is potentially "historically significant" which would also include the newer bridge, but just because something is old doesn't mean it is eligible for the NRHP. That's where the historic review comes into play. If there were two bridges, one being historically significant and the other not significant, and they were both in about the same shape, it would be more difficult, but not impossible, to justify removing the historic one and keeping the non-historic one.

[GreenLanternCorps]

I believe upthread it also states that the older bridge is actually in better condition and less expensive to maintain.

[westerninterloper]

As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

This sounds like some Evansville born-and-raised conspiratin'. I've never heard that Indiana had to build the canal from TH to Evansville because Jackson vetoed the lock and dam; Indiana built it anyway soonafter, right? The Cross-Cut Canal and the old main line of the Central Canal were built because Indiana didn't want Illinois to reap any of the benefits of the canal from TH north, say, a metropolis at Shawneetown - so they built it inland toward White River.

I'd guess that state politicians didn't support bills for SW Indiana because until the collapse of the old mining and industrial economy, SW Indiana was reliably Democratic in a heavily Republican state. Once the mining unions lost their clout, one by one the counties went Republican, so that even Vigo County, the ultimate swing county, swang hard for Trump 2020 and missed.

The problem with I-69 south of Bloomington is that almost no one uses it. Traffic counts are very low, I've driven it many times. It really helps when I'm going from Vincennes to Bloomington, which I used to do a lot; there was really no good way to get from Evansville or Vincennes to Bloomington before 69. But its also among the least populated part of the state, traversing such icons as Odon and Oakland City.

(If you can ever drive through Odon, please do - it is the creepiest town I've ever visited - everything looks like it's from 1960 and in absolute mint condition...not one house overgrown or vacant...a time capsule.)

Yes, it does help Bloomington access points southwest, but the Indy-Evansville traffic already was pretty light, and yes, did follow 41-70 almost always. A few hundred million invested in interchanges and bypasses would have really meant little difference between 41-70 and new terrain 69 for the EVV-IND traffic. But as much as Bloomington resisted the highway, it was constructed for Bton and the Crane Naval Weapons Center. Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.

[tdindy88]

Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.

Bloomington is very likely still a growing community. They would have gone up from the 2010 count if the Census had been conducted in February and not April of 2020.

[sparker]

As one who worked as a census enumerator back in my college days, in this century the count has always referenced April 1 as the date it actually takes place.  That being said -- hard-to-count locations, including group living facilities, are tackled by dedicated groups between mid-January and late March of the census year, so the IU dorms (and frat/sorority houses for that matter) would have likely been canvassed during that period. 

[Henry]

As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

This sounds like some Evansville born-and-raised conspiratin'. I've never heard that Indiana had to build the canal from TH to Evansville because Jackson vetoed the lock and dam; Indiana built it anyway soonafter, right? The Cross-Cut Canal and the old main line of the Central Canal were built because Indiana didn't want Illinois to reap any of the benefits of the canal from TH north, say, a metropolis at Shawneetown - so they built it inland toward White River.

I'd guess that state politicians didn't support bills for SW Indiana because until the collapse of the old mining and industrial economy, SW Indiana was reliably Democratic in a heavily Republican state. Once the mining unions lost their clout, one by one the counties went Republican, so that even Vigo County, the ultimate swing county, swang hard for Trump 2020 and missed.

The problem with I-69 south of Bloomington is that almost no one uses it. Traffic counts are very low, I've driven it many times. It really helps when I'm going from Vincennes to Bloomington, which I used to do a lot; there was really no good way to get from Evansville or Vincennes to Bloomington before 69. But its also among the least populated part of the state, traversing such icons as Odon and Oakland City.

(If you can ever drive through Odon, please do - it is the creepiest town I've ever visited - everything looks like it's from 1960 and in absolute mint condition...not one house overgrown or vacant...a time capsule.)

Yes, it does help Bloomington access points southwest, but the Indy-Evansville traffic already was pretty light, and yes, did follow 41-70 almost always. A few hundred million invested in interchanges and bypasses would have really meant little difference between 41-70 and new terrain 69 for the EVV-IND traffic. But as much as Bloomington resisted the highway, it was constructed for Bton and the Crane Naval Weapons Center. Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.

My suspicions are that there'll be no significant increase in traffic until I-69 is completed all the way to Memphis.

[sparker]

As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

This sounds like some Evansville born-and-raised conspiratin'. I've never heard that Indiana had to build the canal from TH to Evansville because Jackson vetoed the lock and dam; Indiana built it anyway soonafter, right? The Cross-Cut Canal and the old main line of the Central Canal were built because Indiana didn't want Illinois to reap any of the benefits of the canal from TH north, say, a metropolis at Shawneetown - so they built it inland toward White River.

I'd guess that state politicians didn't support bills for SW Indiana because until the collapse of the old mining and industrial economy, SW Indiana was reliably Democratic in a heavily Republican state. Once the mining unions lost their clout, one by one the counties went Republican, so that even Vigo County, the ultimate swing county, swang hard for Trump 2020 and missed.

The problem with I-69 south of Bloomington is that almost no one uses it. Traffic counts are very low, I've driven it many times. It really helps when I'm going from Vincennes to Bloomington, which I used to do a lot; there was really no good way to get from Evansville or Vincennes to Bloomington before 69. But its also among the least populated part of the state, traversing such icons as Odon and Oakland City.

(If you can ever drive through Odon, please do - it is the creepiest town I've ever visited - everything looks like it's from 1960 and in absolute mint condition...not one house overgrown or vacant...a time capsule.)

Yes, it does help Bloomington access points southwest, but the Indy-Evansville traffic already was pretty light, and yes, did follow 41-70 almost always. A few hundred million invested in interchanges and bypasses would have really meant little difference between 41-70 and new terrain 69 for the EVV-IND traffic. But as much as Bloomington resisted the highway, it was constructed for Bton and the Crane Naval Weapons Center. Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.

My suspicions are that there'll be no significant increase in traffic until I-69 is completed all the way to Memphis.

Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.   

[jnewkirk77]

Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

If it's eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the state will have no choice but to look at options to keep it open, advertise for an individual or organization to relocate it at no purchase cost (but relocation at their expense), and if the first 2 are unsuccessful, to make measurements and photos for the National Archives before removing/demolishing the bridge.

For whatever reason, they're talking about keeping the older bridge and doing away with the 1960s-era newer bridge.

From all the reports I'd read on it, the SB bridge has a lot more problems than the NB, including the fracture-critical steel, recurring deck issues, etc. The old one was built better.

[WKDAVE]

Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was needed Indy to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

[sparker]

Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was need to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

There's really no reason to; I-69 in IN is, in the parlance, a fait accompli, regardless of the current or even projected traffic flow.  Any improvement to US 231 south of Crane will be for the benefit of local traffic, not to provide a more efficient pathway to I-69 (although that may occur in any case).  The existing I-69 south of Martinsville  is at present functionally isolated; as stated previously, there should be a significant uptick in overall volume once the final section connecting to I-465 is completed.  Building the Ohio River bridge will probably help -- but more for corridor PR purposes than anything resembling a massive hike in route efficiency.  But when the full Indy-Dyersburg facility is in operation as a singular unit, there will likely be a further ramping up of volume -- which, if heading to Memphis, might result in a corresponding increase in traffic -- and congestion -- through the towns along the unfinished US 51 stretch north of Memphis.  Whether that would prompt TDOT to either redouble their efforts to build out that segment as originally planned or simply scrap that concept and select another route farther away from the problematic wetlands remains to be seen.   

[WKDAVE]

there should be a significant uptick in overall volume once the final section connecting to I-465 is completed.  Building the Ohio River bridge will probably help -- but more for corridor PR purposes than anything resembling a massive hike in route efficiency.  But when the full Indy-Dyersburg facility is in operation as a singular unit, there will likely be a further ramping up of volume -- 

I'm curious what "uptick" you think will occur after completion to 465...double to 14,000 north of Odon?

And how much of a "ramp up" when complete to 155?

I think numbers are important by "uptick" you could mean 1,000 (15% increase) or 10,000 extra vehicles per day; same with "ramp up."

I'm not sure that I-69 is serving anything but "local traffic" from your perspective...."local traffic" from Bloomington to Indy and from Oakland City to Evansville.

[sparker]

there should be a significant uptick in overall volume once the final section connecting to I-465 is completed.  Building the Ohio River bridge will probably help -- but more for corridor PR purposes than anything resembling a massive hike in route efficiency.  But when the full Indy-Dyersburg facility is in operation as a singular unit, there will likely be a further ramping up of volume -- 

I'm curious what "uptick" you think will occur after completion to 465...double to 14,000 north of Odon?

And how much of a "ramp up" when complete to 155?

I think numbers are important by "uptick" you could mean 1,000 (15% increase) or 10,000 extra vehicles per day; same with "ramp up."

I'm not sure that I-69 is serving anything but "local traffic" from your perspective...."local traffic" from Bloomington to Indy and from Oakland City to Evansville.

I'm guesstimating (it's all speculation at this time) that the "uptick" would be in the order of 20-25% over current usage on any I-69 segment from Indy to Dyersburg, primarily because the main "body" of the corridor could be directly accessed at either end (Martinsville>465 is preventing that on the northern end, and Troy>Fulton doing the same on the south end).  Commercial traffic tends to prefer continuity, seeking out alternative routes if the connections are incomplete, resulting in a PITA situation (detours, heavily signalized interim facilities).  As several posters have pointed out, 70/57/55 remains a viable route from Indy to Memphis, arguably the route of choice prior to much of I-69 between those points being completed.  The reality is that I-69 is only marginally shorter; its saving grace is that it isn't seeing a lot of use as of yet, although it appears that some commercial traffic is shifting that way.  Also, the composite route via Effingham and Sikeston is over older Interstate sections, some of which warrants expansion that has yet to occur (possibly due to funding diversion to the I-69 project).

As far as the "ramping up" concept goes, that is a time rather than percentage value -- how long it'll take I-69 to get to the 20-25% overall traffic increase.  I'd guess 3-4 years after completion Dyersburg-Indy, including the bridge.  A second factor would be the level of tolls on the Ohio River bridge -- if they're reasonable enough, especially for commercial vehicles, the estimation above would probably be valid; if it's decided to make an attempt to zero out the bridge costs in as short a time as possible via a substantial toll level the "ramp-up" might take an extra few years. 

[silverback1065]

connecting one of the states largest cities with its capital is justification enough. 67 is a waste of money because it connects nothing but a bunch of small towns.

[NWI_Irish96]

Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was need to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

If you're building a new road from scratch, what's the cost difference between a regular four lane highway and a freeway? I wouldn't think it would be all that much, so might as well make it a freeway even if it isn't absolutely necessary.

[abqtraveler]

Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was need to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

If you're building a new road from scratch, what's the cost difference between a regular four lane highway and a freeway? I wouldn't think it would be all that much, so might as well make it a freeway even if it isn't absolutely necessary.

There are some significant cost differences between a 4-lane highway (assumed to be non-access controlled) versus a freeway with full access control. The short answer is a freeway will typically be more expensive than a 4-lane highway with partial or no access control, because of the added cost of interchanges, bridges and overpasses, and frontage roads in places along a freeway that wouldn't be required along a 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections and driveway access to adjacent properties.

The cost difference will be lower for rural areas, but that difference will increase as the roadway enters a more developed/urbanized area where there are a greater number of intersecting roads and developed properties adjacent to the highway.