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

vdeane

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 21, 2012, 10:55:27 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 21, 2012, 07:53:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2012, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 21, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.
I'm going by posters here - and Owensboro is nearby.  You're the only one that thinks US 41 is fine.

The other projects are further along because KY doesn't care two bits about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  At the rate they are going, it will never be built.
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: deanej on November 22, 2012, 09:53:03 AM
The other projects are further along because KY doesn't care two bits about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  At the rate they are going, it will never be built.

You're wrong again. Kentucky does care about the new bridge, and the I-69 corridor as a whole, but there are other priorities.

As for the existing US 41, the problem is not really with the bridges, although any work done on them can really put traffic in a stranglehold (I see the media advisories and the resulting discussions whenever there's an issue). The problem is the four-lane surface route along "The Strip," as they call it locally. Maybe doing RIROs along the strip and putting in a couple of U-turns would be a short-term fix. The lane adds/drops at the US 60 interchange are also a bit non-standard.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

They seem to be giving no indication of movement on the project, though.  Up here in NY that means a project is dead.  At the rate they're going, I-86 will be finished before this bridge, which is pretty impressive considering that I don't think it will be done until 2025-2030.

Or do things move faster in KY?  I'm used to major projects taking 10-20 years just to get an EIS done.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

seicer

Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.

As for Henderson, the US 60 strip is deficient in that it is not free flowing, but it was never designed to be a freeway. A right-in-right-out situation would make the road more efficient and would be cost effective. If this alignment is bypassed, then upgrading it further in-place would not be necessary.

Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.

Alps

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 24, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.

As for Henderson, the US 60 strip is deficient in that it is not free flowing, but it was never designed to be a freeway. A right-in-right-out situation would make the road more efficient and would be cost effective. If this alignment is bypassed, then upgrading it further in-place would not be necessary.

Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.) Because someone is in a different state, they don't know where Owensboro is? And how does that affect how much KY cares about I-69? Given that Indiana has concrete plans to finish 69, while KY is just getting around to studying the road that will lead to the yet-to-be-determined bridge (and no money for the bridge), that sure sounds like they don't care much to me. Just because you live there doesn't make you right.

Captain Jack

Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:40:43 PM

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.) Because someone is in a different state, they don't know where Owensboro is? And how does that affect how much KY cares about I-69? Given that Indiana has concrete plans to finish 69, while KY is just getting around to studying the road that will lead to the yet-to-be-determined bridge (and no money for the bridge), that sure sounds like they don't care much to me. Just because you live there doesn't make you right.

I have to agree with Steve and the others on Kentucky's seemingly lack of true interest on this highway. For example, it has been over a year since they announced the WK section was now I-69. In that time, they have added a few shields, but not a single BGS, nor a single sign along the I-24 segment, no updated mileage signs and no signage at the exit ramps. In the same time frame, a year ago, I-69 through most of Southern Indiana was still a dirt trail, today it is open.

I am not knocking on KY, but they have had the least to do of any state along the route and appear to be doing next to nothing. There is absolutely no reason at this point, that it should not be completely designated as 69 from the Audubon to the KY/TN state line.

NE2

Yep, there's no reason except FHWA's refusal to accept it into the Interstate system when it has some minor deficiencies that many other Interstates have.
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".

mukade

A lot of this is word games, but what HB said is really accurate.

Quote
...the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence

So the question is if it is a low priority for the state, do they really care about the I-69 bridge? Is it possible to care without devoting any meaningful resources or pushing the schedule out so far? To keep things in perspective, look how long it took Indiana to connect Evansville (the state's 3rd largest city) to Indianapolis. Until 2005, there was little commitment by Indiana other than the widening of US 41 to I-70 back in the 1970s or 1980s.

Everyone understands that the majority of Kentucky's population is in the eastern part of the state so few question the ordering of priorities. On the other hand, there is a significant bottleneck between Evansville and Henderson that will negatively impact growth in that part of the state. That cannot be ignored - something should be done.

Two questions about the I-69 bridge:
1) Not being an expert in funding mechanisms, I am confused about why they can't sell bonds because this relatively short section will surely be tolled anyway (the bridge and possibly the new Henderson bypass). I think this bridge project is owned by Kentucky with Indiana paying a share, but with tolls, how does that work?
2) Considering financial realities and assuming the current bridges are not near the end of their design life, could they revisit a way to use the existing bridges? I know there are state parks and flood plains to work around so it may not be possible. While any new routing would not be optimal, it would significantly improve the current situation.

Also, generally, how do two states decide who gets which bridge? For example, I know Indiana owns I-265 east side, Sherman Minton (I-64), and SR 237, but because the state line is on the northern bank of the Ohio River when Kentucky became a state, does Kentucky pay more than 50% and do they own more than half the Ohio River bridges? For the current US 41 bridges, they are completely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed over decades. What portion does Indiana have to pay?

Grzrd

Ironically enough, in light of recent discussion regarding the location of Owensboro in relation to US 41, the November 25 Henderson Gleaner has an interview with Kevin Sheilley, the outgoing president and CEO of Northwest Kentucky Forward in which Sheilley raises the possibility that I-69 could be re-routed to Owensboro in order to take advantage of the existing bridge there:

Quote
"I'm very concerned that there could be an I-69 detour" for which Owensboro boosters "could say, 'We've already got a bridge.' (In theory, the state) could extend the improvements already taking place on Western Kentucky Parkway (for I-69) over to the Green River Parkway," then upgrade that north-south route to Owensboro and redesignate it as I-69 – and I-67 – rather than have I-69 follow the Pennyrile to Henderson, where a river crossing remains a costly obstacle.
"I know (Owensboro officials) say that's not their intention," Sheilley said. "But it may be on the minds of other people."

Quote from: mukade on November 25, 2012, 08:54:48 AM
A lot of this is word games, but what HB said is really accurate.

The interview also reinforces mukade's observation, but it additionally lends credence to deanej's position that the Henderson-Evansville bridge project is currently "dead":

Quote
But completing the link by constructing an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville – an undertaking that a few years ago was projected to cost $600 million to $800 million – remains a seemingly insurmountable barrier, even if, as expected, it is operated as a toll bridge.
At the recent annual conference of the Kentucky Association for Economic Development – made up of "a group of people usually informed on stuff going on," according to Sheilley – he was discouraged to find attendees saying they thought the I-69 bridge project "was dead."
"As much as we, this region, has fought for I-69, it's still not on the radar screen" of Kentucky at large, Sheilley said. "It's still not getting the attention it needs to go forward.
"I don't sense any major player in Frankfort advocating on its behalf," he said.
"It's going to take a governor saying, 'It's a priority. We're going to find a way to get this done,' " Sheilley said. "With all respect to Gov. (Steve) Beshear, all the focus has been on Louisville," where two new bridges over the Ohio River are being developed.
"There's not a (state) transportation secretary, a speaker of the (Kentucky) House (of Representatives), a president of the Senate – not someone who has a bully pulpit saying, 'Not tomorrow, not next year – this has got to be at the top of the list,' " Sheilley said of I-69.

I wonder what Tom Tokarski and CARR would think of a Kentucky re-route now that the 67 miles of I-69 in Indiana are open to traffic?

mukade

I-69 going to Owensboro is not going to work because:
- It would add 50 miles to I-69. For avoiding the hassle of 15-30 minutes in Henderson, you add 45 minutes of time plus more fuel used. No one would take that route. That was the same logic as the US 41/I-70 routing of I-69. The goal is not an Interstate shield for on a route for status - the Interstate shield needs to be on the best route.
- US 231 is not freeway in Indiana and north/east of Owensboro. It is a very good expressway, but there is no way Indiana at least would upgrade that route to freeway.
- This is the least important, but any move like that would once again screw up the exit numbers

So what would it take to create a Henderson bypass while using the existing bridges? That is the only other alternative. Heck, maybe they will have to demolish quite a few businesses - the US 31 projects in Indiana are taking dozens of businesses. Despite the cost, I bet it is a lot cheaper than a new bridge.

Captain Jack

Interesting find, but that is one heck of a zig zag, and as mentioned, at least an additional 70 miles of interstate to route it back to Owensboro. Even if KY tried to push that, there is no way Indiana will go along, considering how close to the river they have it currently.

Who in their right mind, if southbound at 69-64-164, would then travel east to 231, down around Owensboro, follow the Natcher to the WK and back to the WK-Pennyrile? With 164-41-Pennyrile left in it's current state, it would still have to be at least an hour quicker.

I always found it strange how KY did the Pennyrile, leaving a few miles at each end to navigate grade level streets and bottlenecks. It took them approximately 5 years to build 70 miles between Hopkinsville and Henderson, another 40 years to build the additional 6 miles to connect to I-24, and we are still waiting on the 3-5 miles at the northend.

They spent millions to construct 70 miles, and leave the defficient bookends, when 80 miles or less would have done it completely from 164-24.

hbelkins

There was always a plan to finish out the southern end of the Pennyrile to I-24, but I honestly don't know why it took them so long to do it. I'm not sure, but the Pennyrile may have been finished before I-24 was built, so there was nothing to tie it into.

There were never any plans to extend the Pennyrile beyond its current northern terminus.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

kharvey10

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on November 20, 2012, 10:08:56 PM
Everyone up and down the river might as well hook up to the idea of paying tolls when they do finally get around to building the new bridges.  It's going to be the only way of getting anything done, unless someone has a better idea.  :hmmm:
That was the way the old timers did it for major bridges.

vdeane

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 24, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.
Looks like I have a better idea of where Owensboro is than you do; I just measured it on Google Maps, and it's only 25 miles.  Compared to Louisville, it's practically on I-69's front door.  I would suspect that traffic moving from there to points west would indeed use US 41, since that route is mostly freeway.

Quote
Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.
I've seen routes much further along the process than that get cancelled.  And unless KY does things a lot faster than NY, given the current planning stage, I'd say that bridge won't be built for another 20-70 years yet.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

NE2

Put in a ferry from the end of the US 41 freeway to the end of I-164. Voila, no more intersections.
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".

mukade

#90
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 05:43:06 PM
Put in a ferry from the end of the US 41 freeway to the end of I-164. Voila, no more intersections.

Is there a budget to build canals (from I-164 to the Ohio and the Pennyrile Pkwy to the Ohio)?

seicer

#91
Quote from: hbelkins on November 25, 2012, 12:38:38 PM
There was always a plan to finish out the southern end of the Pennyrile to I-24, but I honestly don't know why it took them so long to do it. I'm not sure, but the Pennyrile may have been finished before I-24 was built, so there was nothing to tie it into.

There were never any plans to extend the Pennyrile beyond its current northern terminus.

Pennyrile Parkway was completed around Hopkinsville in 1968 to US 41A (Exit 7), and extended southward beginning in 2006, and judging from your photos, completed by 2011-2012. Interstate 24 was completed through the county in 1973-1974. There was probably not a need for a southern extension until recently due to US 41A's four-laning in 1957, and I'm still not settled it was needed decades later given that US 41A was fairly free flowing. But US 41A was widened early because Fort Campbell had evolved from a training camp for World War II into a permanent installation.

As for Shelley, special interest groups - which is what Northwest Kentucky Forward is, his comments are for self-interest. His job is on the line if he says otherwise. Of course the governor doesn't place Interstate 69's Ohio River crossing as a "high priority," given that it is a fairly new project and that other highway projects - the Ohio River Bridges Project and the Brent Spence Bridge Project, are of a much higher priority. It's also why there is no more Interstate 66 through southern Kentucky for the foreseeable future, and no talk of a toll road in northern Kentucky or Interstate 74 along the relatively new AA Highway.

With such a high cost - which will surely be over $1 billion by the time construction would actually start, there needs to be more than a commitment from the governor. There needs to be a financial plan which has not been developed. And with a free span just to the west that carries traffic just fine - there is going to be no justification for at least a decade for another span. The only way you are going to see a new bridge developed is if the 1932 northbound span for US 41 is needing replacement. The southbound span was built in 1965 and has quite a few more decades to go.

Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:40:43 PM
Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.)

Cry me a river.

ARMOURERERIC

You should make a bumper sticker:

Henderson Demands to get 69 now

tdindy88

All of this because of a two (or however many it is) mile stretch of hotels, gas stations and fast food chains. I'm half surprised that Wal-Mart isn't on that road, it is nearby however.

Reading that article however about the "proposed" I-69 route through Owensboro, there is a mention that just the word "parkway" has negative conotations to it. Apparently, people think that parkways can only be windy roads with tree-line boulevards and whatnot and that putting interstate shields will make things much better in the Owensboro area. Is this really the opinion of most Kentuckians down there or is this just someone "hyping" the need for an interstate? I'm thinking it's the latter, but I just wanted to know.

Alps

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 25, 2012, 05:56:27 PM

Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:40:43 PM
...
[/ quote]

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.)

Cry me a river.
Learn how to quote properly.

RoadWarrior56

To answer the question about the southern terminus of the Pennyrile Parkway, let's just say I have some inside information.  When the Pennyrile was first constructed in the late 60's, the plan was indeed to eventually extend it south to meet I-24.  The R/W was even purchased for that extension.  However, by the mid 1980's the decision was made not to extend the parkway to I-24 (presumably to save money) and that R/W was sold back to the property owners.

About 12 yrs ago, a new project came along to improve US 41A between the end of the Pennyrile to I-24.  In the course of that project, it was decided to bring back the Pennyrile Extension in order to minimize the improvements needed to US 41A.  The extension was redesigned and the R/W repurchased.  Growth in the south Hopkinsville area forced the realignment of part of the extension compared to its original alignment.

seicer

Quote from: tdindy88 on November 26, 2012, 04:51:49 PM
All of this because of a two (or however many it is) mile stretch of hotels, gas stations and fast food chains. I'm half surprised that Wal-Mart isn't on that road, it is nearby however.

Reading that article however about the "proposed" I-69 route through Owensboro, there is a mention that just the word "parkway" has negative conotations to it. Apparently, people think that parkways can only be windy roads with tree-line boulevards and whatnot and that putting interstate shields will make things much better in the Owensboro area. Is this really the opinion of most Kentuckians down there or is this just someone "hyping" the need for an interstate? I'm thinking it's the latter, but I just wanted to know.

I think it was along the lines of US Rep Hal Rogers who believed that the term "parkway" was a deterrent to economic development. I have a 1999 Herald-Leader article with him quoted as specifically stating that in relation to the then-named Daniel Boone Parkway, which is two-lanes and connects London eastward towards the eastern part of the state. His belief was that by renaming it to Interstate 66 and expanding it to four-lanes, that the parkway designation would no longer be needed.

Jump forward a decade and Interstate 66 is all but dead, sans a half-finished northern bypass of Somerset that is part of the Cumberland Parkway and not Interstate 66. The state has all but dropped interest further eastward because of the very high cost of building a new road between the just-finished four-lane US 119 freeway and the under-construction US 460 freeway that would connect to the Coalfields Expressway in West Virginia which is not being built to interstate standards. That and the Daniel Boone Parkway was renamed after Hal Rogers himself, even though he had nothing to do with the roadway's construction - the Hal Rogers Parkway. How about that!

RoadWarrior56

Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

And I have always wondered why the parallel US routes (US 62, US 41, US 231, etc) were not moved the parkways once the tolls were paid off. 

hbelkins

Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 05:24:38 PMHowever, by the mid 1980's the decision was made not to extend the parkway to I-24 (presumably to save money) and that R/W was sold back to the property owners.

Probably by John Y. Brown., whom I consider to be the second-worst governor in my memory. (Brereton Jones was the worst.)


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

hbelkins

Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 06:10:39 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

That decision was made in the early 1960s when the Mountain Parkway became Kentucky's second toll road. The state already had a Kentucky Turnpike; I don't know why they didn't call them "turnpikes" instead of "parkways" and my guess is anyone who would know is long-dead.

There are still a few old-timers around Shepherdsville who refer to I-65 as "The Turnpike."


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



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.