I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[sprjus4]

US-17 Veterans Bridge in Chesapeake, VA was recently built as a toll bridge.

[ilpt4u]

I don't think there will be any move to reroute US 41 onto the toll bridge.

Isn't there something about US highways not being allowed on toll roads/bridges? I know about US412 in OK and those toll bridges along the PA-NJ border, so I'm not sure if that rule is enforced anymore or not.

US 301 in Delaware is on a new Toll Road segment. US 51 in Northern IL is along the Jane Addams Tollway between Rockford and just before the WI state line. Plenty of US Routes that go across Toll Bridges, and some that utilize Ferrys that charge to cross, as well

[silverback1065]

i think the rule is it's ok if there's a free route nearby. 

[hbelkins]

Since US numbered routes are just glorified state routes with a continuous numbering system across state lines, and the same general style of route marker no matter what state you're in, and the program is administered by a voluntary association (AASHTO) with no statutory systemwide standards the way there are for Interstates via FHWA, there are no legal prohibitions on signing a US route on a toll facility (to my knowledge.)

Examples: Bear Mountain (US 6) and Mid-Hudson (US 44) bridges in New York, and US 13 (Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel) in Virginia.

[silverback1065]

Since US numbered routes are just glorified state routes with a continuous numbering system across state lines, and the same general style of route marker no matter what state you're in, and the program is administered by a voluntary association (AASHTO) with no statutory systemwide standards the way there are for Interstates via FHWA, there are no legal prohibitions on signing a US route on a toll facility (to my knowledge.)

Examples: Bear Mountain (US 6) and Mid-Hudson (US 44) bridges in New York, and US 13 (Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel) in Virginia.

I wonder if the rule is, just always have a free alt in the event of a toll bridge? or this is just made up entirely 

[Rothman]

Getting off-topic.

[Plutonic Panda]

It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

[silverback1065]

It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

it would be nice to have but useless in the grand scheme of things. noone would use it and nothing is on either side for it to connect to. evansville barely has any bike paths and i dont think henderson has any at all. and all of the articles examples have cities that abut the river on either side. not even close to the case here. would anyone even consider henderson a suburb of evansville?

[Plutonic Panda]

I mean you got to start somewhere right

[rte66man]

I mean you got to start somewhere right

"If you build it, they will come"

<ducks and runs>

[Plutonic Panda]

I mean you got to start somewhere right

"If you build it, they will come"

<ducks and runs>

Lol so we better not build it at all because we'll induce demand and it'll become clogged needing to be widened.

[evvroads]

It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

it would be nice to have but useless in the grand scheme of things. noone would use it and nothing is on either side for it to connect to. evansville barely has any bike paths and i dont think henderson has any at all. and all of the articles examples have cities that abut the river on either side. not even close to the case here. would anyone even consider henderson a suburb of evansville?

I agree. Who would use it? It's going to be about 5 miles through farmland and floodplain from interchange to interchange on the new crossing. No one will walk that. Few would bike it. And there's no one walking or biking (that I've ever seen) between Evansville and Henderson right now to begin with. Any pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure will be almost entirely for recreational use, and that's not worth millions of dollars that could be spent upgrading other ped/bike infrastructure in both cities. The best chance for ped/bike on this project is maintaining the twin bridge they plan to demolish as a ped/bike bridge instead (if that's even possible for a much lower cost than maintaining it for motorized/commercial vehicle traffic - idk. I'm not an engineer), and I don't see that happening.

To give Evansville credit, they have been adding a lot of bike paths and accommodations in the past several years. I also just saw they are going to propose adopting a "complete streets" policy for all streets with a traffic count over 1000 cars/day at the next city council meeting.

I wouldn't really consider Henderson a suburb of Evansville any more than Mt Vernon or Haubstadt. IMO, the only true suburb of Evansville is Newburgh and I guess Darmstadt.

[edwaleni]

It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

it would be nice to have but useless in the grand scheme of things. noone would use it and nothing is on either side for it to connect to. evansville barely has any bike paths and i dont think henderson has any at all. and all of the articles examples have cities that abut the river on either side. not even close to the case here. would anyone even consider henderson a suburb of evansville?

I agree. Who would use it? It's going to be about 5 miles through farmland and floodplain from interchange to interchange on the new crossing. No one will walk that. Few would bike it. And there's no one walking or biking (that I've ever seen) between Evansville and Henderson right now to begin with. Any pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure will be almost entirely for recreational use, and that's not worth millions of dollars that could be spent upgrading other ped/bike infrastructure in both cities. The best chance for ped/bike on this project is maintaining the twin bridge they plan to demolish as a ped/bike bridge instead (if that's even possible for a much lower cost than maintaining it for motorized/commercial vehicle traffic - idk. I'm not an engineer), and I don't see that happening.

To give Evansville credit, they have been adding a lot of bike paths and accommodations in the past several years. I also just saw they are going to propose adopting a "complete streets" policy for all streets with a traffic count over 1000 cars/day at the next city council meeting.

I wouldn't really consider Henderson a suburb of Evansville any more than Mt Vernon or Haubstadt. IMO, the only true suburb of Evansville is Newburgh and I guess Darmstadt.

"No one would ever use it"

A common refrain when bike or ped access is discussed in any urban or bridge design.

In fact several DOT's have tried to avoid it by claiming that bike/ped ways are illegal on interstate highways (wrong)

They only require the requisite separation.

When public agencies got the railroads to allow a cars to pass over long spans either by controlled sharing or by building a dedicated attachment, the railroads would always say "no one will use it" because back in 1910, not a lot of people had autos.

When the first rails-to-trails efforts started in the late 50's early 60's, many people would say "why?, no one will use it"

Now when public agencies build new bridges for autos and are asked to include bike/pedways we still say "why, no one will use it".

The Ohio Valley is very scenic and the Evansville Metro provides a vital connection between Indiana and Kentucky. They have been very adept at using public funds in ways to improve their accessibility, mobility and to support tourism.

To include a safe, usable passage for bikes and pedestrians or runners to cross the Ohio is completely rational and provides new options for the area.

For example, they could host a "Ohio River Run" 5k or 10k that crosses the bridge and back without any highway closures.

Southern Indiana is already well known as a great place for competitive bicycle training. This means the area could host a "Tour de Shawnee" regional race that includes a river crossing as part of it.

Personally, I think it would be really cool to ride my bike up to the peak of the bridge and watch barges pass under.

So if you look long term, I do believe there are ways to take advantage of the public investment.

[westerninterloper]

"No one would ever use it"? Just up US 41:

https://www.wthitv.com/content/news/New-walkway-open--574889161.html

New walkway already popular with folks on foot, bikes
Connector links Terre Haute, West T with a safe passageway
By Mark Bennett
Tribune-Star - West Terre Haute

Jul 29, 2021

Cars and trucks zipped past on U.S. 150, but their noises seemed to fade into the background.

Instead, the sounds of natural critters filled my ears as I traversed the new pedestrian walkway between West Terre Haute and Terre Haute adjacent to the highway's south edge. The 1.1-mile path overlooks the Wabashiki Fish and Wildlife Area – a 2,700-acre wetlands habitat for a growing population of birds, animals, amphibians, fish, aquatic creatures, insects, trees and plants.

A walker or biker needs only to look southward to see it all.

It was enough to make me forget – at least momentarily – the July humidity and 90-degree heat. Egrets flew from trees to grassy islands. Birds perched on limbs dove into the water for fish. Sunlight sparkled on the ponds.

The connector between the two towns offers local folks and visitors a spectacular setting to walk, run, ride, bird-watch and snap photographs. The $6.1-million project – brewing for more than a decade, and discussed for far longer – got 80% of its funding from the federal and state governments, and 20% through Vigo County government. The resulting structure adds one other commodity, far more important – safety.

https://www.tribstar.com/news/news_columns/mark-bennett-new-walkway-already-popular-with-folks-on-foot-bikes/article_b33651d6-9949-5f29-b888-701c5bbce707.html

[JREwing78]

I think a pedestrian crossing makes much more sense along the current US-41 corridor. But the opportunity to do it is best with this I-69 crossing. The chances that they would come up with enough funding for a ped/bike only bridge over the Ohio River are slim to none.

I would be interested in seeing what it would cost to retain the 1960's era bridge as a ped/bike connector. It would not receive the loading that vehicle traffic would put on it; presumably it would not have to be maintained to the same standards to remain safe for peds and bikes.

[vdeane]

The Tappan Zee multi-use path is VERY popular, and it's a comparable length.  There are even people who walk the full length, although there's a shuttle, so people don't need to walk both ways.

[seicer]

Who would use it?

Plenty. The East End Bridge for future Interstate 265 (currently SR 265) in Louisville features a bike/pedestrian path and is very popular in warmer months. I was flying over it the other week and saw a lot of folks enjoying the weather during the day with only a handful of access points. One was planned for the Interstate 65 northbound bridge but it was swapped for a dedicated path over an abandoned railroad crossing just east of it.

The Tappan Zee path is very popular (echoing vdeane's comments). At one particular sunset, the path had at least 100+ people on it just enjoying the views (as seen through my UAV).

We need to be approaching these projects from a multi-modal viewpoint. They need to be as accessible to as many people as possible, and adding a bike/pedestrian path is not going to be a financial dealbreaker.

[silverback1065]

all of these examples provided the cities are immediately adjacent, this isnt even close to the case here. I think theyre saying the distance alone makes this useless.

[evvroads]

and adding a bike/pedestrian path is not going to be a financial dealbreaker.

Apparently in this project it would be. They've already narrowed the shoulders to save money and remove any possibility of the bridge being expanded to 6 lanes in the future (which will be needed if an earthquake, barge strike, or other disaster ever renders the remaining twin bridge inoperable).

I'm not against the idea of ped/bike paths or bridges. Quite the opposite really. What I am against is spending millions of extra dollars on adding ped/bike access to an interstate bridge that's going to (1) overlook nothing but water, farmland, and floodplain, (2) be used almost entirely by a handful of recreational users, and (3) connect two cities that don't have adequate ped/bike infrastructure on either side to begin with. Those millions of dollars should instead be spent adding and upgrading ped/bike infrastructure to both cities where more people will get use out of it and where more people will be likely to use it as an actual transportation alternative. If money grew on trees, then I'm all for making I-69 a six lane bridge with full shoulders and ped/bike lanes, but that's just not the case.

[Life in Paradise]

and adding a bike/pedestrian path is not going to be a financial dealbreaker.

Apparently in this project it would be. They've already narrowed the shoulders to save money and remove any possibility of the bridge being expanded to 6 lanes in the future (which will be needed if an earthquake, barge strike, or other disaster ever renders the remaining twin bridge inoperable).

I'm not against the idea of ped/bike paths or bridges. Quite the opposite really. What I am against is spending millions of extra dollars on adding ped/bike access to an interstate bridge that's going to (1) overlook nothing but water, farmland, and floodplain, (2) be used almost entirely by a handful of recreational users, and (3) connect two cities that don't have adequate ped/bike infrastructure on either side to begin with. Those millions of dollars should instead be spent adding and upgrading ped/bike infrastructure to both cities where more people will get use out of it and where more people will be likely to use it as an actual transportation alternative. If money grew on trees, then I'm all for making I-69 a six lane bridge with full shoulders and ped/bike lanes, but that's just not the case.

After spending some time in the NYC metro, I saw the Hudson River bridge for I-287/I-87 and is named the Gov Mario Cuomo bridge (toll).  It is several miles long and has a walk/run/bike section with a parking area on each side.  I would be interested the cost and how any negotiations and explanations went for this additional feature of the bridge.

[hbelkins]

The most logical non-vehicular crossing between Evansville and Henderson would be using the existing US 41 bridge that's going to be eliminated from the route. Pedestrian/bike traffic is more likely to use a route between the two cities' downtowns than the interstate route east of that area.

[CardInLex]

A bike/ped path on the 69 crossing makes sense. Just like the East End bridge in Louisville the path will become a destination. I drive roughly 20 minutes to the East End bridge just to use the path frequently (since dogs aren't allowed on the Big Four downtown). It's always busy.

Also, Evansville has and is starting to get great bike infrastructure, to say the city doesn't is a disservice. My most recent jaunt to Evansville a few months ago included a look at this infrastructure (I don't even ride a bike). The new North Main St trail connecting Garvin Lake with downtown was really nice. The trail along Walnut St was nice too. Not to mention the path along the river in Evansville and the super ped friendly Main Street.

On the Henderson side, the riverfront path is a great place to walk and bike too!

[vdeane]

It's also worth noting that bridges are around for a long time and are not easily retrofitted when needs change.  You can get away with saying "they want a path but there's nothing connecting to it in the project area, so we'll just wait and if they build their part then we'll do it" for a road, but not for a bridge.

[westerninterloper]

It's also worth noting that bridges are around for a long time and are not easily retrofitted when needs change.  You can get away with saying "they want a path but there's nothing connecting to it in the project area, so we'll just wait and if they build their part then we'll do it" for a road, but not for a bridge.

Yes, a bicycle crossing here could be a magnet for trails and tourists for the next hundred years.

[silverback1065]

Ah my comments were with the original plan in mind. I forgot they aren't keeping that old 41 bridge for peds. I really am against putting it on 69, seems like an even worse idea. I am for a connection in most cases, but this one I just don't see it. Question for the locals or whoever is familiar with the area, are Henderson and Evansville remotely connected (in the way that say Louisville and New Albany area are or Cincy/Covington)?