News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 Ohio River Bridge

Started by truejd, August 05, 2010, 10:32:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

US 41

Still just replacing the US 41 bridges would cost a lot less. IDK if it's going to cost 2.5 million per bridge or if that's total cost. Let's say it is 5 million dollars total. 5 million plus the cost of an eastern Henderson bypass has to be a lot less than a new 1 billion dollar bridge.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM


jnewkirk77

Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
Still just replacing the US 41 bridges would cost a lot less. IDK if it's going to cost 2.5 million per bridge or if that's total cost. Let's say it is 5 million dollars total. 5 million plus the cost of an eastern Henderson bypass has to be a lot less than a new 1 billion dollar bridge.

I can PROMISE you that it will cost a lot more than $2.5 million to replace even one of the Twin Bridges.

US 41

I'm was just going off of Kentucky's estimates.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

US 41

Quote from: Grzrd on January 23, 2014, 05:23:00 PM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan. The Project Listing section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)



Here was the estimate.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

Revive 755

^ $2.5 million just for the EA/EIS, not for any actual construction.

US 41

I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

hbelkins

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 02, 2014, 07:32:20 PM
^ $2.5 million just for the EA/EIS, not for any actual construction.

Not just for environmental, but for all of the design phase in that biennium. That's probably Phase I design, given it's still four years out.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

US 41

Quote from: vdeane on March 03, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

okc1

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.
Steve Reynolds
Midwest City OK
Native of Southern Erie Co, NY

Pete from Boston


Quote from: okc1 on March 03, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 

vdeane

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 03, 2014, 11:58:14 PM

Quote from: okc1 on March 03, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Then tell me what those interchanges on Wellesley Island are.  Its four lanes, 65 mph speed limit, service signs at interchanges, interstates standards for four miles from the bridge to Canada.  NY does seem to drop the I-81 signs on the bridge itself though... in terms of signage, I-81 nearly has a gap.

The important difference between I-81 and I-69 is that I-81 was part of the original 1950s system.  I-69 was not.  AASHTO and the FHWA do not and will not ever grandfather in an interstate not part of the original system (this is the very definition of grandfathering in something... to include something that was made before the standard was set).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: US 41 on March 03, 2014, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 03, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.

Ummm...no. If ANY part of a national park is affected by a proposed highway project, it would fall under Section 4(f), and thus be disqualified unless a more feasible route cannot be produced. Plus, a new I-69 bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson would relieve the existing traffic on the US 41 bridges. And, the old bridges, unless seriously upgraded w/ adequate shoulders, cannot be grandfathered into the Interstate system. Why not just go with what has been already approved?

US 41

It's not a national park it's a state park.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

Pete from Boston

#314
Quote from: vdeane on March 04, 2014, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 03, 2014, 11:58:14 PM

Quote from: okc1 on March 03, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Then tell me what those interchanges on Wellesley Island are.  Its four lanes, 65 mph speed limit, service signs at interchanges, interstates standards for four miles from the bridge to Canada.  NY does seem to drop the I-81 signs on the bridge itself though... in terms of signage, I-81 nearly has a gap.

The important difference between I-81 and I-69 is that I-81 was part of the original 1950s system.  I-69 was not.  AASHTO and the FHWA do not and will not ever grandfather in an interstate not part of the original system (this is the very definition of grandfathering in something... to include something that was made before the standard was set).

Sorry, I thought the bridge you were referring to was the one that crosses the border itself.  Serves me right for relying on Google Maps.

I was going to make the same point about retroactively "grandfathering in" something from after the system was begun, but figured there is some hitch in the government's definition of "grandfathering" that is not in line with the rest of the world's, which would not be shocking.

Captain Jack

Quote from: US 41 on March 03, 2014, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 03, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.

Regardless, this still doesn't address the need for a second crossing between Henderson and Evansville. Last Friday, I was returning from Kentucky on the northbound bridge. The southbound had one lane closed on the southern end of the bridge with a "small" accident or possibly car trouble. The southbound traffic was backed up to Riverside Dr in Evansville, which is about 4 miles from the bridge. This isn't all that uncommon. There are a considerable amount of people who work on one side and live on the other. I am sure that is a pretty helpless feeling if you are stuck in a jam, and have a child to be picked up on the other side, or even worse, have an emergency to deal with.

A metro of 400K+ with a retail service area of nearly a million should have more than one river crossing.

silverback1065

Good point.  Didn't think of it that way!

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337


triplemultiplex

Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Captain Jack

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?

I think the general consensus is no, that it will be Veterans Parkway from that point. You are talking about less than 3 miles that could be designated as an interstate, seems kind of pointless.

There are rumors that INDOT is considering re-routing US 41 to use the current I-164 route. If that happens, then obviously it would be US 41.

silverback1065

I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337


Brandon

Quote from: Captain Jack on March 07, 2014, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?

I think the general consensus is no, that it will be Veterans Parkway from that point. You are talking about less than 3 miles that could be designated as an interstate, seems kind of pointless.

There are rumors that INDOT is considering re-routing US 41 to use the current I-164 route. If that happens, then obviously it would be US 41.

There are a lot of 3dis that are under 3 miles in length.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

silverback1065

There are alot barely hitting a mile

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337


lordsutch

Quote from: US 41 on March 05, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
It's not a national park it's a state park.

4(f) applies to any park or historical resource, including elements of transportation infrastructure (such as historic bridges and tunnels). It is deliberately broad to cover examples like Memphis' Overton Park (a municipal park) or the French Quarter of New Orleans, essentially codifying the freeway revolts as federal law.

theline

If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Pete from Boston

Quote from: theline on March 07, 2014, 09:55:56 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?



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.