I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[abqtraveler]

Big Rig Steve just drove through the construction area for the bridge approach on the Kentucky side.  Orange barrels were up, and the left lane was closed on a short section of I-69, but nothing else visible that I could see.

This area that Steve drove thru on 6/12/2022 is a few miles south of the ORX project listed on its website. The project construction area is on US-41 from the Audubon Pkwy north to just south of US-60. The construction zone may be for an unrelated project in northern KY.

My understanding is the Phase I contract is a Design-Build contract, meaning the contractor has to submit a final design package that needs to be approved before construction begins. I think ROW acquisition and utility relocations also have to be completed before the contractor can start construction as well. I haven't seen any recent updates as to where things currently stand with the project.

[Henry]

What is your prediction for the bridge design? My bet is on cable-stayed, because we can't get enough of those.

[abqtraveler]

What is your prediction for the bridge design? My bet is on cable-stayed, because we can't get enough of those.

A challenge in the bridge design is it's near the New Madrid Seismic Zone, so any bridge will need to withstand a major earthquake. I think a cable-stayed, a tied-arch, through arch, or self-anchored suspension design might be on the table. I think the span across the Ohio River would be too great for a girder-and-floorbeam type bridge or a post-tensioned box girder bridge. I doubt a truss bridge will be considered due to the considerable amount of steel (and cost) needed.

[edwaleni]

What is your prediction for the bridge design? My bet is on cable-stayed, because we can't get enough of those.

A challenge in the bridge design is it's near the New Madrid Seismic Zone, so any bridge will need to withstand a major earthquake. I think a cable-stayed, a tied-arch, through arch, or self-anchored suspension design might be on the table. I think the span across the Ohio River would be too great for a girder-and-floorbeam type bridge or a post-tensioned box girder bridge. I doubt a truss bridge will be considered due to the considerable amount of steel (and cost) needed.

The link below will take you to the seismic evaluation by KYDOT of the northbound US41 bridge at Henderson done in 1999. This should give you an idea of the expectations for the new span design.

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/382/

This link discusses the seismic study done for the new Ohio River span at Louisville

https://transportation.mst.edu/media/research/transportation/documents/R202_CR.pdf

I didn't read these in detail, just skimmed them.

[Rick Powell]

A challenge in the bridge design is it's near the New Madrid Seismic Zone, so any bridge will need to withstand a major earthquake. I think a cable-stayed, a tied-arch, through arch, or self-anchored suspension design might be on the table. I think the span across the Ohio River would be too great for a girder-and-floorbeam type bridge or a post-tensioned box girder bridge. I doubt a truss bridge will be considered due to the considerable amount of steel (and cost) needed.

Truss is considered a fracture-critical design and they are pretty much out of favor. Steel girder and concrete deck can be done up to 700 foot span but cost increases exponentially after 350 feet or so, but it is the most redundant design where it can be applied. I have been involved in several girder bridges in the 400 to 550 foot range.

[hbelkins]

I'm told by someone in the know that Evansville is pushing for a pedestrian/bike path on the new bridge. "Why" is the question I asked. Pedestrians aren't going to use a bridge that far east when one of the US 41 bridges could be used for that purpose.

Also, I'm told that the preliminary design for the bridge has only four-foot inside shoulders instead of full-width shoulders. There's great fear that an incident on the bridge will snarl traffic.

[seicer]

Considering that the older of the two bridges will be kept, pedestrians and cyclists won't be using that. It also has a steep grade, so cyclists and steep grades combined with traffic isn't going to be ideal.

They should be incorporating pedestrian and cycling paths on all new major crossings where feasible. You have a state park on one end and a major city on the other. There is no easy way for cyclists (etc.) to cross for many miles - especially if the design is calling for 4' shoulders. We don't need a repeat of the Nice Bridge debacle.

[Rick Powell]

I'm told by someone in the know that Evansville is pushing for a pedestrian/bike path on the new bridge. "Why" is the question I asked. Pedestrians aren't going to use a bridge that far east when one of the US 41 bridges could be used for that purpose.

Also, I'm told that the preliminary design for the bridge has only four-foot inside shoulders instead of full-width shoulders. There's great fear that an incident on the bridge will snarl traffic.

As long as there is a full shoulder on the outside (where most vehicles would pull off anyway in case of a flat or breakdown) I don't see a great need to also widen the inside shoulder. The roadway can go to a full inside shoulder right off each end of the bridge, minimizing exposure to traffic snarls in the corridor overall.

[edwaleni]

I'm told by someone in the know that Evansville is pushing for a pedestrian/bike path on the new bridge. "Why" is the question I asked. Pedestrians aren't going to use a bridge that far east when one of the US 41 bridges could be used for that purpose.

Also, I'm told that the preliminary design for the bridge has only four-foot inside shoulders instead of full-width shoulders. There's great fear that an incident on the bridge will snarl traffic.

It's always possible.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does the bridge need to have four lanes in each direction, like the picture implies? I would understand two or three lanes in each direction, but four really seems like overkill.

[Rick Powell]

Does the bridge need to have four lanes in each direction, like the picture implies? I would understand two or three lanes in each direction, but four really seems like overkill.

I think Ed Waleni's pic was an example showing a pedestrian crossing from another project, not the I-69 crossing itself.

[edwaleni]

Does the bridge need to have four lanes in each direction, like the picture implies? I would understand two or three lanes in each direction, but four really seems like overkill.

I think Ed Waleni's pic was an example showing a pedestrian crossing from another project, not the I-69 crossing itself.

Correct. The example shown is from the I-95 bridge over the St John's River in Florida.

[The Ghostbuster]

That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[edwaleni]

I tried to pull the seismology report for the new US-51 bridge at Cairo that is currently in planning.

www.us51bridge.com

Seeing that they have a near proximity to Evansville and are about a year or two ahead of this project, I wanted to see what the environmental reports pull on New Madrid data.

Well, they had every report posted EXCEPT the seismology report....

https://us51bridge.com/environmental-documentation

So I guess I will have to wait and see when the DEIS for the preferred alternative comes out and see what they have. (2H-2022)

It will be a 980 foot span they calculate and they won't present the proposed designs until all the signoffs on the DEIS are complete. (4Q-2022)

The requirements say they are planning for a 350 year seismic event, so I will assume the I-69 bridge will be following something similar.

FWIW: A 50 year seismic event in the New Madrid would be a 6.0 (25 to 40% chance). Cairo is in Zone 8 of the Mercalli Index. (New Madrid is in Zone 9, which is 7.0+)

Evansville is in Zone 7. According to Mercalli that translates to a 5.5 in the 50 year event probability.

[hbelkins]

I don't think the details have been publicly announced yet, but a groundbreaking ceremony is planned for I-69 one day next week.

[edwaleni]

Researchers have located the remains of a 7.0+ earthquake that struck between Evansville and Mt Vernon on the Wabash Valley Fault. Testing of some of the byproducts show it occurred about 6000 years ago.

Not sure what the lifecycles are for that fault family as recently its mostly been in the 4 range.

Either way, this bridge has to have some seismic tolerance for both fault families, New Madrid and Wabash Valley.

[mgk920]

I also fully agree that pedestrian and bicycle facilities SHOULD be included in all Major crossings (lately I've often been using the Stillwater Bridge (MN32-WI 64) as a model for that, too, as I really like the way that the two states handled that bridge).

That said, I see no need for any such facilities on I-69-Ohio River, as nearby and more useful alternatives (namely one of the two existing US 41 spans) already exist.

I also agree, and a friend who has occasionally dabbled in volunteer firefighting told me a while back, that an old adage among firefighters is 'NEVER trust a truss'.

Mike

[seicer]

The alternative isn't viable for pedestrians or cyclists. It is the narrower and steeper of the two crossings - and it will remain as two lanes with no provisions for either pedestrians or cyclists. Think of the former Milton-Madison Bridge for US 421 which was a nightmare for both. Cyclists, which there were many, had to battle steep grades that backed up traffic on the crossing on a route with no shoulders.

As for shoulders - that could be fine but on an interstate? I've biked on plenty of freeways and expressways but none were designated interstates. It can be done out west in sections but what about a bridge?

[Rick Powell]

The alternative isn't viable for pedestrians or cyclists. It is the narrower and steeper of the two crossings - and it will remain as two lanes with no provisions for either pedestrians or cyclists. Think of the former Milton-Madison Bridge for US 421 which was a nightmare for both. Cyclists, which there were many, had to battle steep grades that backed up traffic on the crossing on a route with no shoulders.

As for shoulders - that could be fine but on an interstate? I've biked on plenty of freeways and expressways but none were designated interstates. It can be done out west in sections but what about a bridge?

The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge. Like I-494 in MN. On the interstate bridges themselves, I am not aware of any that do not have a barrier between the shoulder and the path where there is a defined bike/ped path.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8830256,-93.0168155,3a,75y,259.38h,87.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sviCU7RR-Fi1a_OXgs9YTrw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8825483,-93.0213792,3a,75y,276.9h,85.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjmU_9ejea9bf8zZKD9t-pg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8849768,-93.0090619,3a,44.3y,265.46h,88.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se0qrEz79iu6VCmxraTouFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Revive 755]

The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge.

So I-72 at Hannibal is western interstate? 

https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA

https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9

(In case anyone is wondering, IDOT's ADT map shows 17200 for 2021.

[edwaleni]

The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge.

So I-72 at Hannibal is western interstate? 

https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA

https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9

(In case anyone is wondering, IDOT's ADT map shows 17200 for 2021.

I-72 used to end at the I-172 ramp.

When the Mark Twain Bridge was replaced in 2000 they extended I-72 3 miles into Missouri.

Not clear to me if the bicycle signs came after the bridge was done, or they were thrown up sometime after.

The bridge was originally just US-36 and they may have gotten away with using the shoulders based on that.

[Rick Powell]

The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge.

So I-72 at Hannibal is western interstate? 

https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA

https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9

(In case anyone is wondering, IDOT's ADT map shows 17200 for 2021.

I was planning PM for the replacement of Florence Bridge in IL on old US 36. One of the options was to close the bridge and re-route the traffic on I-72 where the traffic counts are around 8800/day. We also looked into the FHWA IL Division approving allowing bikes on the shoulder across the I-72 Illinois River bridge and to the next exits, since the closing of the Florence Bridge would preclude bike/pedestrian crossing for several miles each way from the closed crossing without an alternative. In no uncertain terms, the idea was shut down right away. It may be a "west of the Mississippi" thing with FHWA, even though my project was only 40-some miles east of Hannibal.

[hbelkins]

The issue, to me, with the new I-69 bridge is that it's out in the boonies, far away from the corridor most pedestrians and bicyclists would use, between the Henderson and Evansville downtowns.

If they're really insistent on moving vehicular traffic to one of the existing bridges, which I still think is a dumb idea, then they should leave the other bridge intact for a multi-use trail instead of demolishing it.

[Revive 755]

I-72 used to end at the I-172 ramp.

When the Mark Twain Bridge was replaced in 2000 they extended I-72 3 miles into Missouri.

Not clear to me if the bicycle signs came after the bridge was done, or they were thrown up sometime after.

The bridge was originally just US-36 and they may have gotten away with using the shoulders based on that.

IRRC the current Mississippi crossing at Hannibal always had I-72 and US 36 cosigned.  I also want to say bikes were allowed on the bridge since it officially opened to traffic.

[edwaleni]

I-72 used to end at the I-172 ramp.

When the Mark Twain Bridge was replaced in 2000 they extended I-72 3 miles into Missouri.

Not clear to me if the bicycle signs came after the bridge was done, or they were thrown up sometime after.

The bridge was originally just US-36 and they may have gotten away with using the shoulders based on that.

IRRC the current Mississippi crossing at Hannibal always had I-72 and US 36 cosigned.  I also want to say bikes were allowed on the bridge since it officially opened to traffic.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this write up about I-72 and 3rd Street.

Until the mid-1990s, I-72 ran from Springfield at I-55 to Champaign at I-57. On June 9, 1991, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) approved the establishment of I-172 from the western terminus of I-72 at Springfield to Fall Creek, four miles (6.4 km) east of Hannibal, Missouri, though it was contingent on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval. The FHWA preferred to designate the route I-72.[2][3]

After discussions regarding extending an Interstate Highway through the state of Missouri, on April 22, 1995, AASHTO approved another renumbering. I-172 was renumbered in its entirety as I-72. The US 36 extension west of Fall Creek was also given the I-72 designation. The Illinois Route 336 (IL 336) expressway was renumbered to I-172 from Fall Creek to Fowler.[3][4]

Prior to September 2000, Mark Twain Avenue (old US 36) was composed of the current Mark Twain Avenue (now Route 79) and the portion of I-72 and US 36 west of exit 157 to the Hannibal city limits. Route 79 terminated at the foot of the old Mark Twain Memorial Bridge at the corner of Third Street and Mark Twain Avenue. Signs along the four lane expressway portion of Mark Twain Avenue marked the route as "Future I-72", while signs along what is now Route 79 had I-72 trailblazers to direct drivers to the temporary terminus at Fall Creek, Illinois. When the new Mark Twain Memorial Bridge was completed in September 2000, I-72 was routed over the new bridge, along with US 36. Route 79 was extended along Mark Twain Avenue to terminate at exit 157.