News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-67: TN, KY, IN

Started by mukade, October 25, 2011, 06:36:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 19, 2018, 08:04:34 AM
Even though the road is already divided and 4 lanes, it would still cost quite a bit to convert 231 south of 64 to freeway and would be an incredible waste of money.  If Owensboro wants it, let Owensboro pay for it.  Indiana needs to finish the last section of I-69 and continue 6-laning 65 and 70.

Actually, that portion of 231 looks like it was always intended to eventually be a full freeway; there's no private access save for the coal plant (which is large enough to get its own interchange anyway); the frontage roads are bowed out at the crossroads to make room for diamond ramps, and the parclo at I-64 is set up to eventually be built out as a full cloverleaf.  Looks like INDOT has future plans for that segment.  Nevertheless, if I were mayor of Owensboro, I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those plans to materialize. 


jnewkirk77

Quote from: sparker on October 20, 2018, 12:14:46 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 19, 2018, 08:04:34 AM
Even though the road is already divided and 4 lanes, it would still cost quite a bit to convert 231 south of 64 to freeway and would be an incredible waste of money.  If Owensboro wants it, let Owensboro pay for it.  Indiana needs to finish the last section of I-69 and continue 6-laning 65 and 70.

Actually, that portion of 231 looks like it was always intended to eventually be a full freeway; there's no private access save for the coal plant (which is large enough to get its own interchange anyway); the frontage roads are bowed out at the crossroads to make room for diamond ramps, and the parclo at I-64 is set up to eventually be built out as a full cloverleaf.  Looks like INDOT has future plans for that segment.  Nevertheless, if I were mayor of Owensboro, I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those plans to materialize.

Intended, no, but built with sufficient ROW to allow, yes. As for future plans, I've heard none.

As designed, the only interchanges were to be at SR 66 on the south end and I-64 on the north. The SR 162 junction was originally to have been a signalized intersection; North Spencer school officials and parents pressed very hard to get it changed to an interchange. It was a good idea.

Moving the frontage roads was money well spent, as it will save the cost later. That said, I doubt very highly that any of those intersections are turned into interchanges in my lifetime, but hey, you never know.

If I were Mayor Watson, I'd bag this nonsense and go hat in hand to KYTC and push to extend I-165 around US 60 and then west along the Audubon. He wants a connection to I-69? There. "Go west, young man."

sparker

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 20, 2018, 02:25:08 AM
If I were Mayor Watson, I'd bag this nonsense and go hat in hand to KYTC and push to extend I-165 around US 60 and then west along the Audubon. He wants a connection to I-69? There. "Go west, young man."

There's an old adage: intelligent people start with the obvious (implying that if that doesn't work, move on to something else).  The fact that Watson (and his predecessor) couldn't see what's right on their doorstep says a lot about their ability to focus (or lack thereof!). 

hbelkins

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 19, 2018, 10:43:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:49:39 AM
Last available traffic count for US 231 between US 60 and the river is just short of 5,700, with 31 percent of that being truck traffic.

South of the US 231/US 60 intersection, it jumps to 10,000 VPD but the truck percentage drops to 24 percent.

West of the KY 144 interchange, the count is more than 36,000. It drops to 31,000 just prior to the Natcher interchange, then jumps to 35,200 west of the Natcher.

The Natcher Parkway is going to become an x65, so Owensboro's going to get its interstate. And once upon a time, the Audubon was going to be an x69, but those signs have been absent from the Audubon for several years.

Is that 5700 still the number from 2012? If so, I would make the case for it being a good 30-50% higher than that now. Obviously KSP sees something out there that they like, given the number of traffic stops I see each week. Of course, the ridiculous 55 speed limit has more than a little to do with that.

I guess. I'm surprised the numbers shown on the traffic counts page for that particular station aren't more recent. I have access to a traffic count app on my desktop at work but think it may use even older data than what's on the map page. If I can remember, I'll check on Monday.

Some surface four-lanes in Kentucky have been upped to 65 mph, but best I can remember, even the freeway portion of US 60 is signed for 55, so I doubt anything in Daviess County other than the parkways will ever be posted for more than double nickels.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jnewkirk77

#204
The speed limit on the freeway section (from KY 331/US 60 W around to Hawes Blvd, so roughly a 12 1/2 mile stretch) was raised to 65 MPH a couple of years ago. The limit drops to 55 going eastbound at the bottom of a hill. It's ticket heaven for KSP.

(Edited to eliminate the excessive quotes. Couldn't do that on my phone ... sorry.)

triplemultiplex

It's quite simple why we keep hearing this noise out of Owensboro.  Because it worked for Evansville.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

sparker

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2018, 09:08:54 AM
It's quite simple why we keep hearing this noise out of Owensboro.  Because it worked for Evansville.

As long as the mayor and others in Owensboro keep their requests to matters that can be dealt with in-state, where they have half a chance of getting results -- and don't go whining to IN about "their part" in any projected corridor up US 231, they may yet be successful.   From their rhetoric, it appears they want an Interstate corridor extending through their area, not simply to their outskirts and then stopping (i.e., the planned I-165 over the Natcher); hence the reference to their being on a "cul-de-sac" (terminology they did steal from Evansville's complaint about the lack of an Interstate bridge there).  Using the Audubon as part of that "through-putting" might be the solution to their problems -- but what is needed is for them not to reject a viable but imperfect solution for a technically superior but politically problematic concept that requires too many "ducks in a row".       

froggie

Since jnewkirk77 is making a big deal about the increase in traffic on 231, I dug into INDOT's traffic count database.  They have hard counts from both 2011 (a good start year since it's the first year the whole corridor from the river to I-64 was 4 lanes) and 2017 at several locations between the river and I-64.  Here's a look at select locations:

- North of IN 66:    2011 count 6122, 2017 count 8388, increase of 37%
- North of IN 70:    2011 count 4591, 2017 count 6542, increase of 42%
- North of IN 162:  2011 count 5731, 2017 county 7873, increase of 37%
- South of IN 68:    2011 count 5754, 2017 count 7690, increase of 34%
- South of I-64:      2011 count 9389, 2016* count 9727, increase of 4%

While traffic along most of the corridor has increase noticeably since 4-laning was finished ca. 2011, it barely changed immediately south of I-64.  I also took a quick look at 2001 counts, which would date to BEFORE the bridge, and traffic has increased generally in the 60-80% range from that time...not quite the "doubling" that was claimed earlier.

It should also be noted that a few locations saw a slight decrease in traffic between 2016 and 2017...but more interestingly:  per INDOT data, traffic volumes on the Ohio River bridge itself actually decreased 25% between 2011 and 2017 (from 10,844 to 8,143 AADT).

silverback1065

evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans.  it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis.  owensboro hits none of those points. 

sparker

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans.  it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis.  owensboro hits none of those points. 

Like it or not, in this day & age corridors are just as often decided by local shouting accompanied by sheer political will as they are by raw need.  Like with I-69 across Southern Arkansas, Owensboro and those with interests in the area feel, well, bypassed by everyone and everything -- and since the big GE plant there closed down in the late '80's,  they're looking to attract they type of business that locates along a trunk Interstate corridor -- possibly those who could also benefit from access to a navigable waterway.  While they've been particularly vocal about such things, they're really no different than places like Fresno, CA or San Angelo, TX inasmuch as they're also metro areas that have, to varying degrees of success, sought development of new Interstates through their vicinity.  But unlike promoters in the other areas, the Owensboro crowd has repeatedly "banged their head against the wall" regarding IN involvement, particularly since the US 231 bridge was opened.   

silverback1065

Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:54:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans.  it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis.  owensboro hits none of those points. 

Like it or not, in this day & age corridors are just as often decided by local shouting accompanied by sheer political will as they are by raw need.  Like with I-69 across Southern Arkansas, Owensboro and those with interests in the area feel, well, bypassed by everyone and everything -- and since the big GE plant there closed down in the late '80's,  they're looking to attract they type of business that locates along a trunk Interstate corridor -- possibly those who could also benefit from access to a navigable waterway.  While they've been particularly vocal about such things, they're really no different than places like Fresno, CA or San Angelo, TX inasmuch as they're also metro areas that have, to varying degrees of success, sought development of new Interstates through their vicinity.  But unlike promoters in the other areas, the Owensboro crowd has repeatedly "banged their head against the wall" regarding IN involvement, particularly since the US 231 bridge was opened.

honestly, once 69 is complete to memphis, i see no need for any new interstates.  most of these proposals are just crazy, with i-14 being the dumbest idea of all.  the only exception is north carolina. 

hbelkins

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans.  it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis.  owensboro hits none of those points.

My understanding is that Owensboro is no longer the third-largest city in Kentucky. That distinction now belongs to Bowling Green.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

sparker

#212
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 31, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
honestly, once 69 is complete to memphis, i see no need for any new interstates.  most of these proposals are just crazy, with i-14 being the dumbest idea of all.  the only exception is north carolina. 

If there was such a thing as a "wayback machine" that could transport us to 1973 in order to undo the Nixon-era "block grant" package that included provisions in Title 23 that transferred impetus for Interstate system additions from the federal to state and local levels (i.e., ensuring that anything like the 1968 batch of "top-down"* additions didn't reoccur), it certainly would be nice.  But there isn't; we have to live with the fallout from that functional change.  But as long as there are cities and regions lacking Interstate access -- and folks from those areas see the existing corridors attracting businesses and jobs -- there will be political pressure to designate system additions to do likewise in those areas.  It's happened since I-49 in the early '80's; 11 completely new Interstates -- and several extensions and 2nd sections -- have been deployed since.  And it's unlikely to cease absent a major recession or worse.  Obviously, some corridors are more justifiable than others -- but the present system doesn't discriminate on the basis of worthiness or warrant -- the squeakiest wheels tend to have the most success at their ventures.  The previous "top-down" approach that brought us the original Interstate system and its later chargeable additions was turned on its head 45 years ago -- welcome to that world!  :-/

....remembered why I inserted the asterisk after "top down" above:

*Even the 1968 additions weren't devoid of their own political manipulation; I-72 was Everett Dirksen's "gift" to his hometown of Decatur, IL; and I-88 was a "make work for your home state" project jointly sponsored by then-Sen. Jake Javits (NY) and, in one of his last legislative efforts, Sen. Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy!   

jnewkirk77

Quote from: froggie on October 30, 2018, 01:35:49 PM
Since jnewkirk77 is making a big deal about the increase in traffic on 231, I dug into INDOT's traffic count database.  They have hard counts from both 2011 (a good start year since it's the first year the whole corridor from the river to I-64 was 4 lanes) and 2017 at several locations between the river and I-64.  Here's a look at select locations:

- North of IN 66:    2011 count 6122, 2017 count 8388, increase of 37%
- North of IN 70:    2011 count 4591, 2017 count 6542, increase of 42%
- North of IN 162:  2011 count 5731, 2017 county 7873, increase of 37%
- South of IN 68:    2011 count 5754, 2017 count 7690, increase of 34%
- South of I-64:      2011 count 9389, 2016* count 9727, increase of 4%

While traffic along most of the corridor has increase noticeably since 4-laning was finished ca. 2011, it barely changed immediately south of I-64.  I also took a quick look at 2001 counts, which would date to BEFORE the bridge, and traffic has increased generally in the 60-80% range from that time...not quite the "doubling" that was claimed earlier.

It should also be noted that a few locations saw a slight decrease in traffic between 2016 and 2017...but more interestingly:  per INDOT data, traffic volumes on the Ohio River bridge itself actually decreased 25% between 2011 and 2017 (from 10,844 to 8,143 AADT).

My apologies for making a "big deal" out of it. You'll not have to worry about that any longer.

froggie

No need to apologize.  You kept pointing it out over a number of posts so I wanted to look at the details.

silverback1065


jnewkirk77

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 24, 2020, 06:36:57 PM
looks like US 231 will be a divided highway one day up to 69:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/columnists/jon-webb/2020/02/24/road-project-could-massively-change-southern-indiana/4831438002/

Take any Jon Webb column with a Cadillac-sized grain of salt. He is bad about making things look far worse than they actually are, and in this one, he conveniently ignores the fact that they are considering the possibility of a Super 2 among the options (others include expressway, freeway, and doing nothing).  But hey, anything to stir up something.

andy

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 24, 2020, 07:00:01 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 24, 2020, 06:36:57 PM
looks like US 231 will be a divided highway one day up to 69:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/columnists/jon-webb/2020/02/24/road-project-could-massively-change-southern-indiana/4831438002/

Take any Jon Webb column with a Cadillac-sized grain of salt. He is bad about making things look far worse than they actually are, and in this one, he conveniently ignores the fact that they are considering the possibility of a Super 2 among the options (others include expressway, freeway, and doing nothing).  But hey, anything to stir up something.

The 231 route is one of a few seriously being studied  routes. See the Mid-states corridor thread for details.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25352.0
Preferred route expected  to be announced  late 2020.
Speculation  is that Senator Braun is interested in this being done.

edwaleni

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 31, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:54:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans.  it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis.  owensboro hits none of those points. 

Like it or not, in this day & age corridors are just as often decided by local shouting accompanied by sheer political will as they are by raw need.  Like with I-69 across Southern Arkansas, Owensboro and those with interests in the area feel, well, bypassed by everyone and everything -- and since the big GE plant there closed down in the late '80's,  they're looking to attract they type of business that locates along a trunk Interstate corridor -- possibly those who could also benefit from access to a navigable waterway.  While they've been particularly vocal about such things, they're really no different than places like Fresno, CA or San Angelo, TX inasmuch as they're also metro areas that have, to varying degrees of success, sought development of new Interstates through their vicinity.  But unlike promoters in the other areas, the Owensboro crowd has repeatedly "banged their head against the wall" regarding IN involvement, particularly since the US 231 bridge was opened.

honestly, once 69 is complete to memphis, i see no need for any new interstates.  most of these proposals are just crazy, with i-14 being the dumbest idea of all.  the only exception is north carolina.

As the US population continues its long going shift from the NE to the SW, the need for additional capacity will be identified in some fashion, well after our lifetimes.

I agree that for the most part the connectivity in place today serves us pretty well. But where the people go, the business goes. Where the business goes, trucks go. And where trucks go, roads are built.

And I agree, I-14 is silly.

The Ghostbuster

Even if US 231 along that corridor is expanded to four lanes, I doubt it would become a freeway (let alone an Interstate 67). It would likely be a four lane highway with at-grade intersections and access to homes and businesses along the corridor.

sprjus4

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:55:54 PM
Even if US 231 along that corridor is expanded to four lanes, I doubt it would become a freeway (let alone an Interstate 67). It would likely be a four lane highway with at-grade intersections and access to homes and businesses along the corridor.
If the project from Owensboro to I-64 was any indication, it will be built on a new-location limited-access right of way, only permitting at-grade intersections at public roadway crossings.

jnewkirk77

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:55:54 PM
Even if US 231 along that corridor is expanded to four lanes, I doubt it would become a freeway (let alone an Interstate 67). It would likely be a four lane highway with at-grade intersections and access to homes and businesses along the corridor.
If the project from Owensboro to I-64 was any indication, it will be built on a new-location limited-access right of way, only permitting at-grade intersections at public roadway crossings.

I touched base with the project team and they are, among the other options, looking at the possibility of a Super 2 using as much existing roadway as possible. If they can do that, I think there's a good chance there could be improvements to the east-west routes that tie into it.  There's really no need for it to be an Interstate-level road, but there's plenty of need for safety and throughput enhancements.

sprjus4

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2020, 07:17:25 PM
I touched base with the project team and they are, among the other options, looking at the possibility of a Super 2 using as much existing roadway as possible.
Yes, you've said this an umpteenth amount of times. It's also included in the route study.

AcE_Wolf_287

#223
This is a map of Interstate 61-68, if you want me to make Interstate 60, let me know!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2JrZeWZTWGFIqyDW6DT-ScsZH4_6kt3&usp=sharing

Life in Paradise

Nice work on the map.  I do see the need for the Western Georgia and Florida interstate.  There is way too much traffic up and down I-75, and many travelers would love to avoid the Atlanta Metro.  I do question the route of I-67 through KY and TN.  That would be expensive in Kentucky to do, and you have just dissed the Southern Indiana people who are trying to get that routed near Huntingburg/Jasper.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.