I-265 Ohio River Bridge

[Revive 755]

I thought Illinois and Indiana used I-Pass.  Not that there's a practical difference anymore...

Indiana uses EZPass, though they initially branded it as iZoom. They have since had the good sense of giving it the more recognizable brand name.

Except on the toll bridge for IN 62/IL 141 across the Wabash:
http://www.in.gov/indot/2708.htm

[Indyroads]

what do you guys think of this person's opinion on the project? http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/09/19/louisville-bridges-project-proceeds-from-tragedy-to-farce/

A lot of people think that the new downtown bridge isn't needed.  In the end, getting both was the only way to get the East End bridge, which is badly needed. 

In he proposed tearing down I-86 along the waterfront. Usuallyi am vehemently opposed to the removal of a freeway from a downtown region but since the freeway is only 2 lanes wide and served by an insufficiently wide tunnel and I-71 to the east is it better replaced by the proposed  waterfront parkway? It seems to me there are somewhat nefarious motive behind many of the freeway removal projects that end up creating massive congestion because a needed road was demolished in the spirit of environmentalism run amok, however in this case, the people could have a point. and I can see the value to having a desirable waterfront district. Maybe even allowing more development up to and closer to the river rather than just the park.

However it would be fair to ask... can the riverfront plans coexist with the freeway?

Does rerouting I-84 along an out of the way routing I-265 or I-264 make more sense?

Is it possible or futile to widen I-64 through downtown and to the east tunnel and beyond?

What other options do we have for I-64 that allow for expansion and better flow for through traffic.

[silverback1065]

what do you guys think of this person's opinion on the project? http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/09/19/louisville-bridges-project-proceeds-from-tragedy-to-farce/

A lot of people think that the new downtown bridge isn't needed.  In the end, getting both was the only way to get the East End bridge, which is badly needed. 

In he proposed tearing down I-86 along the waterfront. Usuallyi am vehemently opposed to the removal of a freeway from a downtown region but since the freeway is only 2 lanes wide and served by an insufficiently wide tunnel and I-71 to the east is it better replaced by the proposed  waterfront parkway? It seems to me there are somewhat nefarious motive behind many of the freeway removal projects that end up creating massive congestion because a needed road was demolished in the spirit of environmentalism run amok, however in this case, the people could have a point. and I can see the value to having a desirable waterfront district. Maybe even allowing more development up to and closer to the river rather than just the park.

However it would be fair to ask... can the riverfront plans coexist with the freeway?

Does rerouting I-84 along an out of the way routing I-265 or I-264 make more sense?

Is it possible or futile to widen I-64 through downtown and to the east tunnel and beyond?

What other options do we have for I-64 that allow for expansion and better flow for through traffic.

The same guy also advocates getting rid of I65/70 inside 465 in Indy.  And replacing it with a crappy parkway.

[thefro]

I think something important to keep in mind is I'm not sure you can fix Spaghetti Junction without the new bridge.  There's a ton of wrecks (causing backups all the way to a few miles into Indiana) due to the extremely poor design of that I-65/I-64/I-71 interchange.  Having enough lanes southbound so that traffic can funnel themselves into the right spots easily is part of that.  There is very poor visibility for signage, not to mention you can't really change lanes since the bridge is definitely operating at capacity at rush hour.

And getting rid of I-65/I-70 through Indianapolis would be pretty goofy (it's shut down now for them to raise some overpasses and is definitely causing traffic problems all over Indy).

[Indyroads]

what do you guys think of this person's opinion on the project? http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/09/19/louisville-bridges-project-proceeds-from-tragedy-to-farce/

A lot of people think that the new downtown bridge isn't needed.  In the end, getting both was the only way to get the East End bridge, which is badly needed. 

In he proposed tearing down I-86 along the waterfront. Usuallyi am vehemently opposed to the removal of a freeway from a downtown region but since the freeway is only 2 lanes wide and served by an insufficiently wide tunnel and I-71 to the east is it better replaced by the proposed  waterfront parkway? It seems to me there are somewhat nefarious motive behind many of the freeway removal projects that end up creating massive congestion because a needed road was demolished in the spirit of environmentalism run amok, however in this case, the people could have a point. and I can see the value to having a desirable waterfront district. Maybe even allowing more development up to and closer to the river rather than just the park.

However it would be fair to ask... can the riverfront plans coexist with the freeway?

Does rerouting I-84 along an out of the way routing I-265 or I-264 make more sense?

Is it possible or futile to widen I-64 through downtown and to the east tunnel and beyond?

What other options do we have for I-64 that allow for expansion and better flow for through traffic.

The same guy also advocates getting rid of I65/70 inside 465 in Indy.  And replacing it with a crappy parkway.

Yeah, No, that would be a total train wreck doing that. Sounds like this Urbanophile guy is one of those environmental-leftist-back to horse and buggy types.

[silverback1065]

what do you guys think of this person's opinion on the project? http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/09/19/louisville-bridges-project-proceeds-from-tragedy-to-farce/

A lot of people think that the new downtown bridge isn't needed.  In the end, getting both was the only way to get the East End bridge, which is badly needed. 

In he proposed tearing down I-86 along the waterfront. Usuallyi am vehemently opposed to the removal of a freeway from a downtown region but since the freeway is only 2 lanes wide and served by an insufficiently wide tunnel and I-71 to the east is it better replaced by the proposed  waterfront parkway? It seems to me there are somewhat nefarious motive behind many of the freeway removal projects that end up creating massive congestion because a needed road was demolished in the spirit of environmentalism run amok, however in this case, the people could have a point. and I can see the value to having a desirable waterfront district. Maybe even allowing more development up to and closer to the river rather than just the park.

However it would be fair to ask... can the riverfront plans coexist with the freeway?

Does rerouting I-84 along an out of the way routing I-265 or I-264 make more sense?

Is it possible or futile to widen I-64 through downtown and to the east tunnel and beyond?

What other options do we have for I-64 that allow for expansion and better flow for through traffic.

The same guy also advocates getting rid of I65/70 inside 465 in Indy.  And replacing it with a crappy parkway.

Yeah, No, that would be a total train wreck doing that. Sounds like this Urbanophile guy is one of those environmental-leftist-back to horse and buggy types.

Yep, people like that would love to remove all interstates. 

[NWI_Irish96]

Tonight at 9pm, The 6th Street entrance ramp to I-65 North in Jeffersonville closes permanently.  10th Street will now be the southernmost point of entry for I-65 North in Indiana.  Broadway St. is also closing permanently between 6th St. and Court Ave.

[froggie]

The old timers may remember that "Urbanophile guy" as a former MTR regular...

As I recall, the 8664 folks are not advocating (per se) for removal of I-64 east of downtown...they're calling for removal of I-64 where it borders the riverfront.  IMO (and answering an earlier question of Indyroads), a vibrant riverfront and I-64 cannot co-exist.  It's either one or the other.

[seicer]

And with a true bypass of Louisville, that can actually happen. Also of consideration is that Interstate 64 cannot be widened east of downtown due to Cherokee Park and the tunnels.

[hbelkins]

The old timers may remember that "Urbanophile guy" as a former MTR regular...

As I recall, the 8664 folks are not advocating (per se) for removal of I-64 east of downtown...they're calling for removal of I-64 where it borders the riverfront.  IMO (and answering an earlier question of Indyroads), a vibrant riverfront and I-64 cannot co-exist.  It's either one or the other.

Not necessarily in Louisville.

http://goo.gl/maps/fD7t9

There's a nicely-used riverfront to the right of the Yum Center in the aerial view, plus the pedestrian approach to the Big Four Bridge (scroll to the right).

The Belle of Louisville and Joe's Crab Shack are pretty much in the center of the photo.

Scroll to the left, past the Galt House hotel and the area where the interstate passed by a structure that is shown at http://goo.gl/maps/b2BW2, and you're in a part of town that no one should really want to venture for recreational purposes.

[NE2]

Scroll to the left, past the Galt House hotel and the area where the interstate passed by a structure that is shown at http://goo.gl/maps/b2BW2, and you're in a part of town that no one white should really want to venture for recreational purposes.

Fixed.

[hbelkins]

Scroll to the left, past the Galt House hotel and the area where the interstate passed by a structure that is shown at http://goo.gl/maps/b2BW2, and you're in a part of town that no one white should really want to venture for recreational purposes.

Fixed.

Not really. You run into a lot of power lines and an electrical substation next to the river, then before long there's the railroad tracks. And by that time you are well away from the hotels, the convention centers, the arenas and the office buildings where people who would typically use the riverfront are congretated, and into a more industrial section of town, even as you drive down Main Street. There's really not much that's worth anything there west of about 8th or 9th Street.

[silverback1065]

The old timers may remember that "Urbanophile guy" as a former MTR regular...

As I recall, the 8664 folks are not advocating (per se) for removal of I-64 east of downtown...they're calling for removal of I-64 where it borders the riverfront.  IMO (and answering an earlier question of Indyroads), a vibrant riverfront and I-64 cannot co-exist.  It's either one or the other.

You can always bury it like they're doing 265, problem solved. 

[seicer]

Next to a river? The Interstate 265 tunnel is on a bluff. Interstate 64 is literally hugging the waterline.

[Brandon]

Next to a river? The Interstate 265 tunnel is on a bluff. Interstate 64 is literally hugging the waterline.

Sure, why not?  We place tunnels under watercourses all the time.  Why not a full freeway next to the watercourse?

[silverback1065]

Next to a river? The Interstate 265 tunnel is on a bluff. Interstate 64 is literally hugging the waterline.

It's not impossible

[rte66man]

Next to a river? The Interstate 265 tunnel is on a bluff. Interstate 64 is literally hugging the waterline.

It's not impossible

Big Dig Jr. or Son of Big Dig

[Henry]

Next to a river? The Interstate 265 tunnel is on a bluff. Interstate 64 is literally hugging the waterline.

It's not impossible

Big Dig Jr. or Son of Big Dig

[silverback1065]

This is what is was referring to (about 65/70) http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/10/04/indianapolis-freeway-teardown-follow-up/

[hbelkins]

Next to a river? The Interstate 265 tunnel is on a bluff. Interstate 64 is literally hugging the waterline.

It's not impossible

Big Dig Jr. or Son of Big Dig

That would be Little Dig, right?

[froggie]

Similar to what I recently did for the I-20/59 Birmingham proposal, I've started sketching out an I-64 waterfront removal (or downgrade) concept.  Will post a map once completed (possibly in a couple weeks once I'm back stateside).

[JMoses24]

You'd have to protect I-64 from flooding. Floodgates would be necessary, and in the event they're installed, there goes downtown access.

[ShawnP]

Not going to happen with a underground tunnel ideal as the water table is just as close to surface as portions of Louisiana. Large sections of Louisville are constantly flooded with every heavy rain.

[NWI_Irish96]

I-65 Northbound is getting a new temporary exit ramp at Exit 0.  Traffic is expected to be diverted to the new ramp beginning Tuesday 12/3.

UPDATE: Here is a story about the new ramp: http://www.wdrb.com/story/24114772/exit-0-ramp-into-jeffersonville-to-shift-starting-tuesday-afternoon

It looks like a very sharp right onto the new ramp. 

[tidecat]

I thought Exit 0 was going away.  Was I wrong?