I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[silverback1065]

there's enough people in henderson to support those businesses, they'll be fine.  this is just a bullshit argument to stop progress, it happens all the time.  If your business is worth going to, you will be fine.  They tried to stop the 37 project in fishers and noblesville over this stupid reasoning, and it failed. 

[hbelkins]

I haven't been through Henderson other than the US 41 strip for many years. Where is the major commercial development in town? What's along the strip is mainly highway businesses (gas stations, motels, restaurants). Or is there not really a commercial area and do most residents cross the river to shop and eat at those facilities on the east side of Evansville near what once was I-164?

[codyg1985]

There is a Cracker Barrel, Sonic, Walmart, and Lowe's along US 60 east of US 41.

[qguy]

Often with a high-congestion, mixed local- and through-traffic situation, when the local traffic and through traffic is separated, an increase in local business patronage occurs, not a decrease as is feared.

The congestion causes so long a travel time that through drivers are less likely to stop in order to avoid making a long throughput even longer. (Stop? Are you kidding? I just want to get through!) And local drivers are more likely to avoid the area because of the hassle caused by the congestion. (Drive into town? Are you kidding? It's too blasted hard to get in and out!) When the local and through traffic is separated and local congestion is eased, though drivers are less likely to mind stopping because they can get in and out rather quickly and local drivers are more likely to drive in to local businesses because it's easier to do than before.

[compdude787]

Often with a high-congestion, mixed local- and through-traffic situation, when the local traffic and through traffic is separated, an increase in local business patronage occurs, not a decrease as is feared.

The congestion causes so long a travel time that through drivers are less likely to stop in order to avoid making a long throughput even longer. (Stop? Are you kidding? I just want to get through!) And local drivers are more likely to avoid the area because of the hassle caused by the congestion. (Drive into town? Are you kidding? It's too blasted hard to get in and out!) When the local and through traffic is separated and local congestion is eased, though drivers are less likely to mind stopping because they can get in and out rather quickly and local drivers are more likely to drive in to local businesses because it's easier to do than before.

Yes! This is exactly why bypasses are a good idea for businesses.

[mvak36]

I got an email alert about this, but they've selected three corridors for further evaluation:
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/short-list-corridors-69-ohio-river-crossing/

The three alternatives advanced are: West Corridor 1, West Corridor 2, and Central Corridor 1.

Three Corridors are Moving Forward for Further Evaluation

Henderson, Ky. — The I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) Project Team has identified a short list of corridors for the possible location of a new I-69 bridge. After completing the screening process, West Corridor 1, West Corridor 2 and Central Corridor 1 are identified as the corridors with the greatest potential to meet the project's purpose and need. A No Build Alternative is also carried forward for comparison.

"We identified five broad corridors in April,"  said Janelle Lemon, Indiana Department of Transportation project manager. "Since then, our Project Team has been collecting data for each corridor, along with gathering feedback from the public, agencies and stakeholders. This information has helped us identify the corridors that make the most sense for additional study."

A wide variety of information has been gathered for each corridor, including where homes and businesses are located, along with identifying historic structures and potential environmental impacts.

"Our Project Team is moving forward to further develop alternatives in each corridor,"  said Marshall Carrier, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet project manager. "This work will include detailed field surveys, impact assessment and engineering analyses. No decisions have been made. Our team will continue to develop each corridor and study cost, impact, community support and financial feasibility."

Corridors Not Moving Forward

Two corridors are not recommended for further evaluation, the East Corridor and Central Corridor 2.

The East Corridor is the longest corridor with the largest amount of new roadway, and would require a major bridge over the Green River. It has the highest estimated construction costs (at least $1 billion) and high maintenance costs. The East Corridor also has the greatest impact on farms, rivers and streams and floodplains.

Central Corridor 2 includes the second highest amount of new roadway and second-highest operations costs. It has second highest impacts to wetlands, river and streams, floodplains and farmland. While similar to Central Corridor 1, it has higher construction and long-term maintenance costs and is not recommended for further evaluation.

Corridors Moving Forward in the DEIS

Three corridors are recommended for further evaluation in development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): West Corridor 1, West Corridor 2 and Central Corridor 1. As required by law, a No Build Alternative is also carried forward for comparison. It assumes an I-69 Ohio River Crossing is not built, and provides a benchmark against which the impacts of other corridors can be compared. While these three corridors merit additional study, no decisions have been made on which is the best corridor.

Both West Corridors would replace the existing US 41 bridges, resulting in the lowest long-term maintenance costs for the states. The West Corridors have modest impacts to environmental resources, but both would impact many residences and businesses in Henderson.

"These are impacts that will be examined carefully and reviewed thoroughly,"  said Carrier. "The West Corridors would keep traffic in the US 41 corridor, supporting its further development. We'll continue to work with the Henderson community to better understand how I-69 could fit into the community's long-term vision."

Because impacts are comparable in most categories and estimated cost is similar ($910 million to just over $1 billion), the states feel both West Corridors warrant further study.

Central Corridor 1 is also recommended for further evaluation. It's the shortest corridor, resulting in the least amount of new roadway. It has considerable impacts to farmland, wetlands and forested habitat, but would impact the fewest residences and no businesses.

Estimated construction costs for Central Corridor 1 are the lowest ($740-$860 million), however the cost estimate does not include a long-term solution for the US 41 bridges. Development of this corridor will include identifying a long-term solution for the US 41 bridges. This will include:

    The evaluation of the removal of one existing US 41 bridge from service
    The evaluation of the removal of both US 41 bridges from service
    The evaluation of removing truck traffic from the existing US 41 bridges
    The evaluation of tolling US 41 bridges to assist in making long-term cross-river mobility financially feasible for the area

What Happens Next

The project team will further develop alternatives in each corridor to a more advanced level of design, and will carefully study each corridor to examine cost, impact, community support and financial feasibility.

A preferred alternative is expected to be identified by fall of 2018. A Record of Decision (ROD) is expected by late 2019.

The information gathered will allow executive leadership in both states to make an informed decision and deliver an I-69 Ohio River Crossing.

The short list of corridors will be discussed in detail at two upcoming open houses.

Screening Process Summary Map

[Life in Paradise]

What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).

[silverback1065]

What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).

why would the call for the removal of the 41 bridges with the big rehab they are doing now on them?

[codyg1985]

What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).

why would the call for the removal of the 41 bridges with the big rehab they are doing now on them?

They are expensive to maintain overall. A removal may not occur immediately after the bridge is rehabbed, but maybe after 10-20 years it will seriously be considered.

[rte66man]

It would seem that, of the remaining options, Central Corridor 1 would be the cheapest, have the least impact on existing businesses and residences, and cause the least disruption to the existing bridges and roads while under construction.  I cannot imagine what a cluster US41 will be if either of the West options are chosen.

[compdude787]

It would seem that, of the remaining options, Central Corridor 1 would be the cheapest, have the least impact on existing businesses and residences, and cause the least disruption to the existing bridges and roads while under construction.  I cannot imagine what a cluster US41 will be if either of the West options are chosen.

I agree. Simply from looking at a map, the Central Corridor 1 is pretty similar to the idea that I came up with.

[inkyatari]

The beauty of the central corridor is that it leaves the existing bridge as a local alternative, and thru traffic get srouted away.

[mgk920]

It would seem that, of the remaining options, Central Corridor 1 would be the cheapest, have the least impact on existing businesses and residences, and cause the least disruption to the existing bridges and roads while under construction.  I cannot imagine what a cluster US41 will be if either of the West options are chosen.

I agree. Simply from looking at a map, the Central Corridor 1 is pretty similar to the idea that I came up with.

Same here.  IMHO, it is far and away the best alternative and is what should be built.

I would also redo the south end of the US 41 Henderson Strip to better integrate it into the local street network and farther separate it from the future I-69 mainline.  Think: 'KISS factor' ('Keep It Simple, Stupid').

Mike

[qguy]

Or the more pithy and pointed version I heard a lot in the Air Force: KISS OFF. Keep it simple, stupid, or face failure.

[Avalanchez71]

No build sounds feasible.  So would the central option be something like Meridian, MS or Laurel, MS or Cumberland, MD?

[sparker]

No build sounds feasible.  So would the central option be something like Meridian, MS or Laurel, MS or Cumberland, MD?

Probably none of the above.  The original tight-radius curves in Laurel have been fixed; that section of I-59 -- and the one in Meridian -- is typical MS construction of freeways through medium-sized towns; I-22 through New Albany was actually upgraded to similar standard prior to signage.  Cumberland's an anomaly; a "grandfathered-in" substandard freeway segment; while a bit of an obstacle to efficient traffic flow on I-68, it'll probably persist for the foreseeable future.  The Ohio River crossing and approaches will probably be a typical 4-lane facility with full shoulders and a K-rail or thrie-beam barrier on at least the bridge portion; there's no "poison pill" option in the works to make it a low-speed substandard facility. 

There's no logical or rational reason to configure Henderson as a functional Breezewood analog; why such a concept is even being posited is difficult to fathom!  The city will get along just fine with a through-traffic bypass; its economic future hardly depends upon a captive audience of travelers and/or truckers slogging down a main drag!

[silverback1065]

there's 0% chance the no build will happen, it's just there because they have to consider it.  it will be the first option to be eliminated, because it's a stupid idea.

[qguy]

The no-build option is a base-line with which to compare every other option.

[silverback1065]

The no-build option is a base-line with which to compare every other option.

that too

[inkyatari]

The no-build option is a base-line with which to compare every other option.

It's a control, like used in..  SCIENCE!

[thefro]

Worst case scenario you could always just close the bridges and make US 41 a Cul-de-sac when the lifespan of the current bridges is up.

Although I'm not sure what the issue is considering both states find the money to maintain bridges that have way less traffic/use than the Evansville/Henderson bridges.

[hbelkins]

No build sounds feasible.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't. 

[silverback1065]

Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P

[vdeane]

Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P

Believe it or not, the bridges are located entirely within Kentucky.

[Avalanchez71]

I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt.  They are looking for money as it is.   Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?