I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[Plutonic Panda]

Unpopular opinion, but I personally think that little stub should be converted to a medium speed(45-55MPH) boulevard with bike lanes and the interchange downgraded to an intersection be it roundabout or signal. Open it up to development.

[hbelkins]

It would be a logical x41 since it will connect to US 41.

[sparker]

It would be a logical x41 since it will connect to US 41.

The prospects for the stub probably depend upon whether INDOT wants to retain it as a 41>69 connector or simply relinquish it to Evansville to do with it whatever they want.  If the latter, then anything is possible, from just leaving the configuration as is to the "boulevardization" mentioned earlier.   There will likely be any number of parties who will put their 2 cents (vocally adjusted for inflation) in about the available options; but since it's likely it will still be in use in its present role for several more years, there's ample time to come up with something!

[edwaleni]

Unpopular opinion, but I personally think that little stub should be converted to a medium speed(45-55MPH) boulevard with bike lanes and the interchange downgraded to an intersection be it roundabout or signal. Open it up to development.

That sounds great except it borders the Ohio on the south side and there is a high levee there.

But I do like the "grand boulevard" concept because it is the main drag into the city center.

As for residential development on the north side of the road, it has possibilities because Veterans Parkway sits in the bottom where the historical flood plain meets the plateau that is Evansville.

But to get any decent views, that development would have to be set higher than the levee across the road.

And I assume people who would want to live next to a river would want great views.

[Life in Paradise]

One would think that the former I-164/I-69 stub from the bridge approach to current US-41 could be labeled US-41 so that through truck traffic from the north would be routed onto the new toll bridge for revenue.  KY could label the orphaned US-41 bridge to be Alt 41 (since it already exists on the south side of Henderson).  If Indiana definitely does not want to officially denote any Alt US highway, they could just label it To-Alt 41, since the KY border is approx 1/2 mile south of the interchange.

[silverback1065]

Unpopular opinion, but I personally think that little stub should be converted to a medium speed(45-55MPH) boulevard with bike lanes and the interchange downgraded to an intersection be it roundabout or signal. Open it up to development.

That sounds great except it borders the Ohio on the south side and there is a high levee there.

But I do like the "grand boulevard" concept because it is the main drag into the city center.

As for residential development on the north side of the road, it has possibilities because Veterans Parkway sits in the bottom where the historical flood plain meets the plateau that is Evansville.

But to get any decent views, that development would have to be set higher than the levee across the road.

And I assume people who would want to live next to a river would want great views.

and a large wastewater plant too. 

[sparker]

One would think that the former I-164/I-69 stub from the bridge approach to current US-41 could be labeled US-41 so that through truck traffic from the north would be routed onto the new toll bridge for revenue.  KY could label the orphaned US-41 bridge to be Alt 41 (since it already exists on the south side of Henderson).  If Indiana definitely does not want to officially denote any Alt US highway, they could just label it To-Alt 41, since the KY border is approx 1/2 mile south of the interchange.

Actually, that's one of the better ideas I've heard for how to configure the 41 crossing and access points once the I-69 bridge is in operation.  The one problem is that KY seems averse to multiplexing Interstates and parallel US highways, preferring to maintain separate alignments whenever possible.  Since the current bridges as well as the remaining one post-Interstate are within KY, their policies may carry the day.  Nice try, though!

[hbelkins]

One would think that the former I-164/I-69 stub from the bridge approach to current US-41 could be labeled US-41 so that through truck traffic from the north would be routed onto the new toll bridge for revenue.  KY could label the orphaned US-41 bridge to be Alt 41 (since it already exists on the south side of Henderson).  If Indiana definitely does not want to officially denote any Alt US highway, they could just label it To-Alt 41, since the KY border is approx 1/2 mile south of the interchange.

Actually, that's one of the better ideas I've heard for how to configure the 41 crossing and access points once the I-69 bridge is in operation.  The one problem is that KY seems averse to multiplexing Interstates and parallel US highways, preferring to maintain separate alignments whenever possible.  Since the current bridges as well as the remaining one post-Interstate are within KY, their policies may carry the day.  Nice try, though!

Notable exception: The Clays Ferry bridge crossing the Kentucky River on I-75. The original span (northbound) was built for US 25 and 25/421 are routed onto the interstate, with the old bridge carrying a state route designation.

However, the hangup with routing US 41 onto the new I-69 bridge is that it will be a toll facility. It make sense to keep US 41 routed on the existing Henderson "strip" and crossing the river and then the border. Should Indiana decide to route US 41 onto VMP and I-69 and turn over the route through town and on to I-64 to the city, then Kentucky wouldn't be involved in the decision.

[The Ghostbuster]

Another question pertaining to when the new Interstate 69 bridge opens, this time the subject is the existing US 41 interchange between Interstate 69 and the Veterans Memorial Parkway. Does anyone think this interchange will be reconfigured after the 69 bridge is complete? I could see it being downgraded from a free-flow interchange to a service interchange (such as a diamond, a diverging diamond, or a SPUI) with US 41 stopping while current 69/VMP remains free-flowing. The existing cloverleaf ramps are kind of goofy-looking, and I think the existing configuration will be overkill once traffic is relocated to the new bridge.

[abqtraveler]

Another question pertaining to when the new Interstate 69 bridge opens, this time the subject is the existing US 41 interchange between Interstate 69 and the Veterans Memorial Parkway. Does anyone think this interchange will be reconfigured after the 69 bridge is complete? I could see it being downgraded from a free-flow interchange to a service interchange (such as a diamond, a diverging diamond, or a SPUI) with US 41 stopping while current 69/VMP remains free-flowing. The existing cloverleaf ramps are kind of goofy-looking, and I think the existing configuration will be overkill once traffic is relocated to the new bridge.

They could probably eliminate the interchange and replace it with a signalized intersection since it will be handling a lot less traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.

[sparker]

Another question pertaining to when the new Interstate 69 bridge opens, this time the subject is the existing US 41 interchange between Interstate 69 and the Veterans Memorial Parkway. Does anyone think this interchange will be reconfigured after the 69 bridge is complete? I could see it being downgraded from a free-flow interchange to a service interchange (such as a diamond, a diverging diamond, or a SPUI) with US 41 stopping while current 69/VMP remains free-flowing. The existing cloverleaf ramps are kind of goofy-looking, and I think the existing configuration will be overkill once traffic is relocated to the new bridge.

They could probably eliminate the interchange and replace it with a signalized intersection since it will be handling a lot less traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.

Given the expense of the I-69 bridge construction (as well as the rest of the corridor project), I'd fully expect INDOT to take the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to the current interchange, weird-looking ramps or not (the truly weird ones look like they're addressing largely contraflow movements) unless pressed by the City of Evansville or the local metro planners.  Again, there's no specific indication as to whether the stretch east of US 41 will be relinquished or remain under INDOT auspices; that decision would have to precede any regarding configuration changes. 

[hbelkins]

Why spend the money to reconfigure the interchange until it becomes necessary, such as when one of the bridges reaches the end of its life a la the US 2/US 51 trumpet?

Remember, there are people who actively shunpike the I-65 bridge in Louisville by taking city streets through downtown to cross on US 31. You'll probably have plenty of that on US 41 once I-69 opens as well. And also, there's the big argument in northern Kentucky and Cincinnati against the tolling of the Brent Spence Bridge and a new adjacent span that it will increase shunpiking on the other bridges. Which is another reason I think it's foolish to tear down one of the US 41 bridges.

[sprjus4]

^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don't agree with this strategy, but likely why it's being done / proposed.

[Rick Powell]

^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don't agree with this strategy, but likely why it's being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

[seicer]

As I posted earlier, it's expected that with routine maintenance, the oldest of the two bridges will be nearing 130 years old and in active service.

[hbelkins]

^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don't agree with this strategy, but likely why it's being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

The youngest of the two US 41 bridges was built in 1968. I hardly consider that "advanced age," especially since it's younger than I am. 

Still makes little sense to tear down the newest of the two bridges and leave the oldest one standing, especially since it's narrower and not as close to modern standards as the newer one.

[abqtraveler]

^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don't agree with this strategy, but likely why it's being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

The youngest of the two US 41 bridges was built in 1968. I hardly consider that "advanced age," especially since it's younger than I am. 

Still makes little sense to tear down the newest of the two bridges and leave the oldest one standing, especially since it's narrower and not as close to modern standards as the newer one.

It's because the older bridge is considered "historical" while the newer bridge is not.

[seicer]

The report made no note of its "historic" nature - it's just in better condition.

[jnewkirk77]

^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don't agree with this strategy, but likely why it's being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

The youngest of the two US 41 bridges was built in 1968. I hardly consider that "advanced age," especially since it's younger than I am. 

Still makes little sense to tear down the newest of the two bridges and leave the oldest one standing, especially since it's narrower and not as close to modern standards as the newer one.

It's nothing to do with the age -- the older bridge is just in better shape! The southbound bridge has been a maintenance money pit compared to the northbound span. As I recall from the report, the SB had to be redecked (or at least resurfaced) before it was 15 years old. The NB didn't need such work until it was almost 55 years old.  And you'll see routine work being done on the SB a whole lot more often than the NB.  It's newer, but that doesn't make it better.

[Avalanchez71]

They could mark a US 41W and a US 41E.  The US 41E could rejoin at I-64 and US 41.  US 41 would become US 41W.

[Rick Powell]

They could mark a US 41W and a US 41E.  The US 41E could rejoin at I-64 and US 41.  US 41 would become US 41W.

I'd disagree with that marking and implied signage, if US 41W is a 2-lane free bridge and US 41E is a 4 lane toll bridge. Better to distinguish between the two - make a "US 41 Business" for the 2-lane and "I-69/US 41 TOLL" to reinforce the function of the 2 routes.

[sprjus4]

I'm with the position of leave US-41 where it is now, and make the new route solely I-69. No need to shift the US route.

[silverback1065]

lettered routes are evil!

[Avalanchez71]

lettered routes are evil!

Why is that? 

We have several in TN.

US 19E/19W
US 11E/11W
US 25E/25W
US 45E/45W
US 70N/US 70S

We even have a multiplex of US 70/US 70S and a US 41/US 41A.

[vdeane]

I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.