News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-69 Ohio River Bridge

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

Previous topic - Next topic

NE2

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 17, 2014, 11:52:21 AM
Wouldn't an interstate bridge need 2 ten foot wide shoulders on either side of the 2 lanes?
The Dames Point Bridge doesn't have either, and the FHWA made it part of I-295 in 2010 (or 2011?).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".


hbelkins

The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Captain Jack

Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.

Yep, and the old (northbound) is not wide enough to meet interstate standards. He keeps advocating using the US 41 spans for I-69. In of itself, I really don't have a problem with it, although if that is the case, I would suggest elevating it through the so called Henderson strip rather than ramming it through Audubon Park. But regardless, it still doesn't address the need that Evansville-Henderson needs a second crossing.

You add the 69 traffic to these spans, and the frequent back ups and delays will only get worse. Not to mention, the northbound span is over 80 years old.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Captain Jack on March 18, 2014, 12:18:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.

Yep, and the old (northbound) is not wide enough to meet interstate standards. He keeps advocating using the US 41 spans for I-69. In of itself, I really don't have a problem with it, although if that is the case, I would suggest elevating it through the so called Henderson strip rather than ramming it through Audubon Park. But regardless, it still doesn't address the need that Evansville-Henderson needs a second crossing.

You add the 69 traffic to these spans, and the frequent back ups and delays will only get worse. Not to mention, the northbound span is over 80 years old.

The cost of an elevated highway in Henderson will eat significantly into the bridge savings, and you still end up with an 80-year-old bridge. 

hbelkins

Some interesting developments in Henderson today and a little speculation.

There was a truck wreck on the US 41 strip that resulted in a truck spilling a load of tree sap. The road was closed all day and traffic was being detoured via a side street. Traffic was snarled for hours. This is the busiest road in western Kentucky and if the completion of I-69 induces more traffic, look out.

I knew all this because I was in training with my counterpart from the western part of the state. He said the northbound bridge, the oldest one, will need to be replaced in about 20 years. It's possible that after the I-69 bridge is built and it takes through traffic off US 41, the bridge will not be replaced and traffic in both directions will use the other bridge.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Captain Jack

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/tanker-spill-creates-massive-traffic-jam-in-hender/49483/iN6oQdZ-cUy-FyKK2_-lpg

Coverage of the backup. This one is pretty severe, but backups and delays of a couple of hours are all too common.

billtm

Quote from: silverback1065 on March 10, 2014, 11:22:16 AM
Are their any other unsigned state roads in Indiana?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Yes, Sagamore Pkwy. West in West Lafayette from the new US 231/52 bypass to the Wabash R. bridge is still maintained by INDOT even though it is unsigned. About half of it has already been repaved and the other half is expected to be repaved soon.

On a separate note, why is the bridge planned to be built after the hook of the J? Shouldn't I-69 just go directly south from Covert Ave.? Also, does anyone else think I-69's routing along the parkways of Kentucky is terribly inefficient and jagged? (Especially the segment from Henderson to Calvert City.) I think they should do what they did with I-35 in Kansas between Emporia and KC, and build a new stretch of freeway for that segment. (I think that is what they did in Kansas, but I'm not sure. Tell me if I'm wrong.)

tdindy88

Angel Mounds State Historic Site is in the way if the highway were to go straight south from Covert Avenue. It also looks like there would be a few homes in the way. Meanwhile, south along Green River Road there looks to be about nothing, so it's by far the path of least resistance. As for Henderson to Calvert City route, it was the only way that Kentucky could have the interstate without having to do all those environmental studies that would take years, not to mention that whole building a new-terrain route thing that would cut through some people's properties. 

triplemultiplex

Quote from: billtm on May 18, 2014, 12:53:12 AM
Also, does anyone else think I-69's routing along the parkways of Kentucky is terribly inefficient and jagged?

All of I-69 is jagged and inefficient.
A new terrain alignment in KY would have made I-69 an even bigger waste than it already is.
The proposed Ohio River crossing is way more expensive and less useful than blasting through the parking lots and box stores north of Henderson.
But we've covered these issues ad-nausea.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Captain Jack

Quote from: tdindy88 on May 18, 2014, 02:46:58 AM
Angel Mounds State Historic Site is in the way if the highway were to go straight south from Covert Avenue. It also looks like there would be a few homes in the way. Meanwhile, south along Green River Road there looks to be about nothing, so it's by far the path of least resistance. As for Henderson to Calvert City route, it was the only way that Kentucky could have the interstate without having to do all those environmental studies that would take years, not to mention that whole building a new-terrain route thing that would cut through some people's properties.

Angel Mounds is a small part, but primarily they have to keep the bridge far enough west to be past the mouth of the Green River on the KY side.

Grzrd

Quote from: thefro on March 15, 2014, 06:25:01 PM
Game over for Ron Payne... FHWA says that the current route on the Parkways is designated in Federal law.

Nevertheless, he still won't let it go. This article (behind $1.00 paywall) reports that, on Monday, he continued to press the issue with KYTC's chief district engineer for District 2:

Quote
Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to bring Interstate 69 through Owensboro instead of the route selected for it through Evansville and Henderson, Mayor Ron Payne on Monday was still arguing his case, this time to Kevin McClearn, chief district engineer for District 2 of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet....
For more than four months, Payne has argued long and hard that routing I-69 through Owensboro and using the William Natcher Bridge would be far less expensive than building a $1.4 billion bridge many years from now across the Ohio River in Evansville-Henderson.
"Why is I-69 going where it is going?" Payne asked McClearn. "We could save a whole lot of money."
Payne insisted to McClearn that, despite all the cost figures contained in the Palmer report for upgrading parkways, four-lane highways and interchanges around Owensboro, all of it together won't cost as much as building a single interstate bridge over the Ohio River.
McClearn answered by saying the route of I-69 has been set by Congress and that work on it in Kentucky is very far along.
"We've followed the law," he said. "We've spent millions, and I-69 is going well. I know Owensboro wants to be on an interstate, and I hope it works out."

hbelkins

Arguing your case before a chief district engineer on a project this big is about the biggest exercise in futility this side of trying to convince a vegan to eat a big ol' sirloin steak.

These projects are planned by, at the lowest level, the KYTC higher-ups in Frankfort or the state legislature, or in this case, Congress and the FHWA. A CDE has absolutely no influence over a decision like this. The mayor may be trying to win over an advocate for his cause, but what he's most likely doing is causing the CDE to say the same thing just about everybody else has said: "This guy's certifiable and I wish he'd just go away and leave us all alone."


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jnewkirk77

Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 11:26:54 PM
Arguing your case before a chief district engineer on a project this big is about the biggest exercise in futility this side of trying to convince a vegan to eat a big ol' sirloin steak.

These projects are planned by, at the lowest level, the KYTC higher-ups in Frankfort or the state legislature, or in this case, Congress and the FHWA. A CDE has absolutely no influence over a decision like this. The mayor may be trying to win over an advocate for his cause, but what he's most likely doing is causing the CDE to say the same thing just about everybody else has said: "This guy's certifiable and I wish he'd just go away and leave us all alone."

A-freaking-men.

At least he has the paper in his corner. They have an editorial today that is nothing but pure ass-kissery. It's priceless. Basically it's tone is this: "Surely all the rest of us will come around and see what a genius we have in our Honorable Mayor!!!"

/sarcasm

silverback1065

Can you post this editorial?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337


jnewkirk77

It isn't posted to the M-I's website yet. I'll see if I can get a scan of it when I get to work this evening.

jnewkirk77

Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

silverback1065

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:02 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

I-69 was always going to go through Evansville, no other route was ever in the plans ever you can say there were alternatives, but they all went to Evansville, the whole purpose of this highway ever existing in Indiana was to connect Indy with Eville, for the idiot leaders in Owensboro to think that Indiana would have ever even considered using 231, they must be smoking something!  And now I hear they want I-67, which isn't even useful, it's pure selfishness that they want this highway!  I-67 is of least importance to Indiana, there are many projects that were supposed to be built around the state that were defunded and indefinitely shelved because money for them was moved to 69.  There are many, many projects around the state that make more since now than another interstate that parallels an already adequate interstate already in existence.  A 4 lane divided highway is good enough Owensboro, why are they crying so much? They already get a spur of 69! 

jnewkirk77

Quote from: silverback1065 on June 04, 2014, 10:45:27 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:02 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

I-69 was always going to go through Evansville, no other route was ever in the plans ever you can say there were alternatives, but they all went to Evansville, the whole purpose of this highway ever existing in Indiana was to connect Indy with Eville, for the idiot leaders in Owensboro to think that Indiana would have ever even considered using 231, they must be smoking something!  And now I hear they want I-67, which isn't even useful, it's pure selfishness that they want this highway!  I-67 is of least importance to Indiana, there are many projects that were supposed to be built around the state that were defunded and indefinitely shelved because money for them was moved to 69.  There are many, many projects around the state that make more since now than another interstate that parallels an already adequate interstate already in existence.  A 4 lane divided highway is good enough Owensboro, why are they crying so much? They already get a spur of 69!

I totally agree.  It's just ridiculous!

Avalanchez71

Just leave Henderson to be the Breezewood of I-69.

vdeane

Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

hbelkins

Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2014, 09:17:40 PM
Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?

From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: hbelkins on June 05, 2014, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2014, 09:17:40 PM
Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?

From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.

Actually, this is one of the least worthwhile of various motives speculated here for a potential "demand I-69 to garner a compromise" scheme underway, and still plausible.

jnewkirk77

Quote from: hbelkins on June 05, 2014, 11:10:25 PM
From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.

^^^ This is the truth!!! ^^^

Captain Jack

What was the cost for the Natcher bridge when it was built? The traffic counts on it appear to be fairly small. I don't recall Ron Payne or the M-I showing any fiscal concern when this bridge was built.

Both US 41 and the I-69 bridges will have considerably higher traffic counts than the Natcher can ever hope to attain.

It's bad enough the mayor is brain-dead, but how can you take a newspaper seriously when they obviously have no idea that 69 is ALREADY COMPLETED to Evansville.

jnewkirk77

Quote from: Captain Jack on June 09, 2014, 02:36:51 AM
What was the cost for the Natcher bridge when it was built? The traffic counts on it appear to be fairly small. I don't recall Ron Payne or the M-I showing any fiscal concern when this bridge was built.

Both US 41 and the I-69 bridges will have considerably higher traffic counts than the Natcher can ever hope to attain.

It's bad enough the mayor is brain-dead, but how can you take a newspaper seriously when they obviously have no idea that 69 is ALREADY COMPLETED to Evansville.

The Natcher's Wikipedia entry shows the cost was $70 million, but I don't think that includes the relocation/four-laning of Highway 60 (now 60 and 231) from just northeast of Owensboro to the foot of the bridge.  Of course, given what inflation has done in the last 12 years, that could be the whole thing.

No one here that I know of takes the Messenger-Inquirer seriously.  Editorials like this are a good reason why.



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.