I-265 Ohio River Bridge

[NWI_Irish96]

I drove the new bridge three times today -- twice from Kentucky into Indiana, and once from Indiana back to Kentucky.

What is signed "International Drive" in Highway Gothic on the Kentucky side of the bridge is apparently signed "River Ridge" in Clearview in Indiana.

There's a sign placement goof going west on the Indiana side -- There's a sign listing mileages for River Ridge, I-65 and I-64. Problem is, the sign is located beyond the River Ridge exit.

Indiana went overboard on the roundabouts at the IN 62 exit. I know the Hoosiers love their roundabouts, but gee whiz. On my first foray across the bridge, I exited at IN 62 and went east before I turned around to head back across into Kentucky. I had to wait quite awhile at the first roundabout (the ramp to IN 265/IN 62 west) because of the heavy traffic heading east on old 62 getting on 265 toward I-65.

Indiana had put down brine on the bridge, as it seems to do every bridge on major routes.

River Ridge can also be accessed by 62 so that's probably why it appears on that mileage sign.

International Drive is apparently the name of the new road connecting 265 to River Ridge, though I don't know why it isn't signed consistently.

Also, the road connecting that exit to Utica is not finished yet and the people of Utica are upset about it.

[hbelkins]

International Drive is apparently the name of the new road connecting 265 to River Ridge, though I don't know why it isn't signed consistently.

There's blank space on Indiana's River Ridge exit signs. International Drive might be added at a later date.

[silverback1065]

have they fixed that interchange with 62? i remember them saying they'd do something to fix it to address safety concerns

[NWI_Irish96]

have they fixed that interchange with 62? i remember them saying they'd do something to fix it to address safety concerns

Nothing has been changed.  With the large volume of trucks going from EB 265 to Port Rd, I don't know why they didn't have a direct ramp.  It's all the trucks going through that roundabout that's causing the problems. 

[billtm]

Picture Time! (I hope it'll work this time! )

Heading SB on I-65 just before the interchange with I-265. I kind of wish they'll install flyover ramps in the future because we had to slow down a lot for the cloverleaf, but its not that big of a deal.


I think I took this photo right after the new concrete pavement began, before then the quality of the road was quite crappy.




Some photos of the bridge itself. I think the bridge looks pretty nice, but some of he rock cuts along the new stretch of highway looked different than what I'm used to seeing along I-64 for some reason.



Getting to go through a tunnel is always neat in this part of the country. If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about with the rock cuts, the upper right layer of rock near the entrance to the tunnel is one. Why does it look so different compared to the lower layer?




These last 3 photos were taken going NB on I-265(KY-841) during a much better day weather-wise.

[silverback1065]

these are great photos!  i wish indiana used more concrete pavement!  that cloverleaf with 65/265 is weird, one of the loops is much bigger than the other 3

[2trailertrucker]

I drove from Lexington to Indy yesterday using I 265, and I loved it! Still has the the "new road" smell.

Coming east on I 64 to exit 19, took I?265 north. Great way to bypass downtown Louisville. The mileage difference on my odometer minimal, but the ease was well worth it.

[hbelkins]

Forgot to mention in my earlier post about driving the new bridge -- there are still two signs southbound on I-71 stating that KY 841 ends at US 42 in Kentucky. Not sure why those haven't been removed yet.

[NWI_Irish96]

Picture Time! (I hope it'll work this time! )

Heading SB on I-65 just before the interchange with I-265. I kind of wish they'll install flyover ramps in the future because we had to slow down a lot for the cloverleaf, but its not that big of a deal.

I use that interchange going to/from work each day and my trip home gets slowed a bit because of the cloverleaf instead of the flyover for NB 65->WB 265.  The only leg that has the flyover right now is EB 265->NB.

Also, I-65 Exit 5 (Veterans Pkwy) very badly needs to be redone into a SPUI.

[tdindy88]

Interesting too that the control city for Exit 6A is Jeffersonville, unless there's supplemental signage telling you that you can take that highway toward Kentucky. Jeffersonville doesn't do too much good since the main part of the city can be reached further south along I-65 toward the river. I suppose the highway does serve the far northern fringes of that city however.

[NWI_Irish96]

Interesting too that the control city for Exit 6A is Jeffersonville, unless there's supplemental signage telling you that you can take that highway toward Kentucky. Jeffersonville doesn't do too much good since the main part of the city can be reached further south along I-65 toward the river. I suppose the highway does serve the far northern fringes of that city however.

There isn't any supplemental signage as of now.  They need a supplemental sign that says, "Lexington via I-64 and Cincinnati via I-71 use Exit 6A"

[SP Cook]

IMHO, it would seem that as you approach I-265 from both 64, 65, and 71 the signage should indicate the that 265 is a bypass of Louisville, with the various interstates and control cities as appropriate,  and the control city for remaining on any is "Downtown Louisville".   Obviously with signage for the connection between 65 N and 64 W. 

[hbelkins]

Kentucky needs to get rid of this and its twin about a half-mile down the road on I-71 southbound.

2016 East End Bridge Trip Day 1 - 203 by H.B. Elkins, on Flickr

[nwi_navigator_1181]

I love the new pics and the area. I hope I get the chance to cross it as a side trip the next time I drive through the area.

My concern lies with the control city signage. Jeffersonville as a control city for a highway that will pull drivers away from said city is quite ill advised, especially when the highway in which that sign is located takes you directly there. Also, using Louisville as a control city for eastbound State Road 265 (at Old Salem Road, where it's much closer to the river, but pulls you further from Louisville by crossing it) is equally as puzzling, since it would be much easier to go west to I-65 to get to Louisville. Plus, it doesnt feel as if you're being "boomeranged" by going that direction.

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

[NWI_Irish96]

I love the new pics and the area. I hope I get the chance to cross it as a side trip the next time I drive through the area.

My concern lies with the control city signage. Jeffersonville as a control city for a highway that will pull drivers away from said city is quite ill advised, especially when the highway in which that sign is located takes you directly there. Also, using Louisville as a control city for eastbound State Road 265 (at Old Salem Road, where it's much closer to the river, but pulls you further from Louisville by crossing it) is equally as puzzling, since it would be much easier to go west to I-65 to get to Louisville. Plus, it doesnt feel as if you're being "boomeranged" by going that direction.

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

Jeffersonville was listed as the control city for EB 265 before the bridge was built, so at that time the primary destination for traffic taking EB 265 was River Ridge or other points in Eastern Jeffersonville.  Clearly this needs to be changed now but it made sense until a month ago.

There are plenty of other cases where signage made sense when there was no bridge but now does not make sense.  I agree that signing 265 like a beltway is a good idea.  Maybe this can happen in conjunction with getting the new bridge and the rest of the section between 65 and 71 designated as I-265, which is something I assume they are going to do but haven't seen anything official about it. 

[TheStranger]

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

For 841 north/265 west, should St. Louis also be a control city (representing I-64 west)?

Part of the issue is that Louisville's beltways have been historically signed by name with no control city (264/Watterson, 265/Snyder). Now that the bridge is complete, 265 with bypass destinations makes sense (especially when the goal of the bridge project was to take thru traffic out of downtown).

[NWI_Irish96]

Yes, now that the bridge/road is complete, it would make sense to start using Cincinnati, Lexington, Nashville, St. Louis and Indianapolis as control cities on 265/841.

Also, get on with getting it signed as I-265 so we can stop using multiple numbers while referring to the road.

[hbelkins]

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

For 841 north/265 west, should St. Louis also be a control city (representing I-64 west)?

Part of the issue is that Louisville's beltways have been historically signed by name with no control city (264/Watterson, 265/Snyder). Now that the bridge is complete, 265 with bypass destinations makes sense (especially when the goal of the bridge project was to take thru traffic out of downtown).

This would be a good case for supplemental signage. There used to be some small signage on northbound I-65 indicating traffic for Lexington or Cincinnati should take eastbound 265/841. And while I think Indianapolis and St. Louis might be appropriate for I-71 south approaching the Snyder, I don't know how much thru westbound I-64 traffic is going to use 265 to bypass downtown. Myself, I'm not sure if I would even use it to make the I-64 west to I-65 north connection unless downtown Louisville was a mess.

[NWI_Irish96]

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

For 841 north/265 west, should St. Louis also be a control city (representing I-64 west)?

Part of the issue is that Louisville's beltways have been historically signed by name with no control city (264/Watterson, 265/Snyder). Now that the bridge is complete, 265 with bypass destinations makes sense (especially when the goal of the bridge project was to take thru traffic out of downtown).

This would be a good case for supplemental signage. There used to be some small signage on northbound I-65 indicating traffic for Lexington or Cincinnati should take eastbound 265/841. And while I think Indianapolis and St. Louis might be appropriate for I-71 south approaching the Snyder, I don't know how much thru westbound I-64 traffic is going to use 265 to bypass downtown. Myself, I'm not sure if I would even use it to make the I-64 west to I-65 north connection unless downtown Louisville was a mess.

It's only 0.3 miles shorter to use 265 instead of 71 directly to 64.

[hbelkins]

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

For 841 north/265 west, should St. Louis also be a control city (representing I-64 west)?

Part of the issue is that Louisville's beltways have been historically signed by name with no control city (264/Watterson, 265/Snyder). Now that the bridge is complete, 265 with bypass destinations makes sense (especially when the goal of the bridge project was to take thru traffic out of downtown).

This would be a good case for supplemental signage. There used to be some small signage on northbound I-65 indicating traffic for Lexington or Cincinnati should take eastbound 265/841. And while I think Indianapolis and St. Louis might be appropriate for I-71 south approaching the Snyder, I don't know how much thru westbound I-64 traffic is going to use 265 to bypass downtown. Myself, I'm not sure if I would even use it to make the I-64 west to I-65 north connection unless downtown Louisville was a mess.

It's only 0.3 miles shorter to use 265 instead of 71 directly to 64.

But the time savings using 265 to 71 to 64, instead of going through downtown, would probably be significant during rush hour or other busy times.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

This would've been the ideal time to follow the practice Ohio does for their beltways: using control cities based on the nearest interstate puling away from the bypassed city. IN-265 East uses Cincinnati and Lexington (in that order, since I-71 would be reached before I-64), KY 841 North/IN-265 West uses Indianapolis, and all interchanges in between can simply use "TO I-71 and I-64" or "TO I-65." Other than that, I love the work done, and it looks really good.

For 841 north/265 west, should St. Louis also be a control city (representing I-64 west)?

Part of the issue is that Louisville's beltways have been historically signed by name with no control city (264/Watterson, 265/Snyder). Now that the bridge is complete, 265 with bypass destinations makes sense (especially when the goal of the bridge project was to take thru traffic out of downtown).

I'd use St. Louis as a supplemental sign for I-71 southbound traffic since switching to I-64 wouldn't take place until well into Indiana, then I'd use full signage for St. Louis at the I-65 (Indiana) interchange. New Albany would be moved to supplemental signage.

[silverback1065]

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/5/14143746/louisville-spaghetti-junction?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_source=facebook

This article is sure to piss you guys off

[NWI_Irish96]

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/5/14143746/louisville-spaghetti-junction?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_source=facebook

This article is sure to piss you guys off

This is nothing new to people here.  There has been a small movement for a long time to get rid of I-64 between downtown and the Sherman Minton Bridge.  It's really not an awful idea, but doing so would make the rest of the construction this article is mocking more necessary, not less.

[billtm]

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/5/14143746/louisville-spaghetti-junction?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_source=facebook

This article is sure to piss you guys off

This is nothing new to people here.  There has been a small movement for a long time to get rid of I-64 between downtown and the Sherman Minton Bridge.  It's really not an awful idea, but doing so would make the rest of the construction this article is mocking more necessary, not less.

That is exactly what bothered me the most about this article. Sure you can get rid of it, but there must be an alternative for people to take to be in place first.

[compdude787]

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/5/14143746/louisville-spaghetti-junction?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_source=facebook

This article is sure to piss you guys off

Yep, it sure pissed me off. Whenever that article gave examples of freeways being removed, it's usually short freeways like the Central Freeway in SF. Those I can understand how they'd have minimal impact on traffic given that it was little more than a glorified offramp (same with the Embarcadero Freeway), and didn't really carry much thru traffic, but ripping out actual 2di freeways through cities is something that has never been done before (at least not yet) and hopefully never spreads beyond the Community Gridlock idea in Rochester. And I have never really understood the argument that new urbanist hipsters put forth about freeways being a "scar" on a city. How is it a scar? Freeways help cities, not wound them!