I-69 Ohio River Bridge

[hbelkins]

According to a quote given to a reporter for a publication called "The Bond Buyer" out of Chicago, the bridge still includes plans for a toll-revenue bond issue. The bond issue will be part of $513.7 million from funding sources other than the federal grant.

[Rick Powell]

Why do you think this? There are numerous interstates that carry such traffic now that definitely need three lanes in places, but they don't need to upgrade their entire corridor.

Of all vehicle trips, only 5% are over 30 miles according to the DOE. Typically, a good percentage of intermediary distance trips, in addition to long-haul trips, are needed to reach a critical mass requiring additional lanes on an interstate type facility. I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport would be a nice rural bypass of I-40/I-30 but I can't see a similar amount of intermediary traffic on it as I-40/30 given the lack of towns or traffic generators of any size along the route.

[The Ghostbuster]

That of course assumes Interstate 69 is completed between Shreveport and Memphis, and that is not a given based on what we've all seen so far. Nevertheless, even if 69 is never completed, I hope the right-of-way in the proposed corridor remains open so that completion is always a possibility, even if it takes 100 years.

[hbelkins]

None of the rest of rural I-69 in Tennessee, Kentucky, or Indiana is three lanes. All that Kentucky did with the overlap along I-24 was to post I-69 signs alongside the I-24 signs. I don't know why anyone would think that the Ohio River bridge would need to be three lanes when 1.) there will still be the free US 41 bridge between Henderson and Evansville and 2.) the Tennessee and Cumberland River bridges on the I-24 concurrency are just two lanes.

[JREwing78]

It will be evident by about 2050 if the I-69 Ohio River crossing will need additional lanes. At that point they'll have to figure out a financing structure that allows them to pay for a 2nd structure (likely extending the planned tolls). Wisely, it appears both Kentucky and Indiana are in a "Get the damn bridge built!" mode and not allowing "scope creep" to interfere.

I'm curious to see what traffic levels on US-41 stabilize at after the new bridge opens. I suspect it'll end up at around 15,000 vpd, which is at the upper end of viable for a 2-lane bridge. I understand the motivation to ditch the SBD side, but I suspect when the NBD side faces replacement, it'll end up being rebuilt as a 4-lane facility.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe the Ohio River Bridge, when it is constructed, should be wide enough to accommodate a third lane in each direction. Just in case the need arises in the future.

[I-55]

Maybe the Ohio River Bridge, when it is constructed, should be wide enough to accommodate a third lane in each direction. Just in case the need arises in the future.

For now build it to 4 lanes with 10 foot right and left shoulders, if the need arises restripe to have 4' left and right shoulders and an additional lane each way

[westerninterloper]

Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100. I-69 is still only four lanes around Evansville, and there isn't strong commuter traffic across the river from Henderson to warrant all those lanes, especially if one of the current US41 bridges remains. I still think it's a pipe dream that there's going to be major through truck traffic from Laredo to Detroit along this route. I-69 was always a way to get some new interstate segments built, primarily between Evansville and Indianapolis, that frankly even today don't have the traffic to necessitate that road. The upgrades between Bloomington and Indianapolis were warranted and necessary, but Evansville is a pretty small metro overall, and a few upgrades along US 41 to Terre Haute could have done the trick for billions less.

[roadman65]

I think they should build the four lanes with shoulders and leave a ROW for a parallel twin (if needed).

[edwaleni]

Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100. I-69 is still only four lanes around Evansville, and there isn't strong commuter traffic across the river from Henderson to warrant all those lanes, especially if one of the current US41 bridges remains. I still think it's a pipe dream that there's going to be major through truck traffic from Laredo to Detroit along this route. I-69 was always a way to get some new interstate segments built, primarily between Evansville and Indianapolis, that frankly even today don't have the traffic to necessitate that road. The upgrades between Bloomington and Indianapolis were warranted and necessary, but Evansville is a pretty small metro overall, and a few upgrades along US 41 to Terre Haute could have done the trick for billions less.

Unfortunately your logic could be applied to a large percentage of highways in the US.  Do you wait until the roads are busting over before you build, or do you build in anticipation of additional traffic?

Also Evansville was the last metro of its size not connected inside the state of Indiana by an interstate. Yes, that is important.

Pre I-69 AADT:

Indy to Bloomington (IN-37) - 12k to 15k.
Bloomington to Washington (IN-57) - 2k-6k
Washington to I-64 (IN-57) - 3K-5K
I-64 to Ohio River - 24k to 28k.

The weak spot was always going to be between Bloomington and I-64. But just for reference I-69 is very weak in AADT between Ft Wayne and Muncie/Anderson as well but has a high truck percentage.

But that AADT above had a very weak truck percentage. When I-69 is built the AADT will go up for through transit routing, but the truck percentage will most definitely elevate.

I am looking forward to seeing how the AADT will shift towards I-69 when it is finished. Not just the Bloomington - Indy section, I mean absorption of north south traffic from adjoining state highways.

US-41, IN-57, US-231 just to name a few.

[Revive 755]

Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

[sprjus4]

Regardless of any growth predictions, it would still be wise to construct a large bridge of this scale with the capability of being expanded to six lanes... and not by eliminating/reducing the shoulder. The ultimate design should be three 12 foot lanes in each direction with 10 foot right and left shoulders.

For now until that hypothetical widening is ever (or never) built, two 12 foot lanes, a 22 foot inside shoulder, and a 10 foot right shoulder. Building bridges to handle future expansion is not a new concept - even if the added lane isn't needed now.

[Rick Powell]

Regardless of any growth predictions, it would still be wise to construct a large bridge of this scale with the capability of being expanded to six lanes... and not by eliminating/reducing the shoulder. The ultimate design should be three 12 foot lanes in each direction with 10 foot right and left shoulders.

For now until that hypothetical widening is ever (or never) built, two 12 foot lanes, a 22 foot inside shoulder, and a 10 foot right shoulder. Building bridges to handle future expansion is not a new concept - even if the added lane isn't needed now.

The easiest and least expensive way of accommodating future expansion would likely involve 2 things-
1. Make the main span a steel girder/concrete deck design that can easily be widened, if the river navigation span length will accommodate it. Typically this would limit the span to 500-600 feet.
2. Widen the piers within the river bottom to accommodate a future widening so that the contractor doesn't need to go back into the river when the eventual widening is done..

[triplemultiplex]

Four lanes will be fine for the entire lifespan of this bridge.  Not even worth considering building in enough room for a third lane.  That's so speculative as to be ridiculous.  Shit costs too much to build as it is without throwing in extra materials for fantasy growth.

[hbelkins]

Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

[ibthebigd]

Right now going thru Evansville is only 30 minutes slower from Indianapolis to Nashville

SM-G996U

[bmeiser]

Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

[zzcarp]

Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

From google maps, it's about 4.5 hours from Nashville to Indy via I-65 and 4 hrs 50 minutes via I-24/Pennyrile/I-69. The I-69 route is about 30 miles longer.

[bmeiser]

I'd totally add 20 minutes to my >4hr trip to avoid the Indiana / Louisville portions of 65. That's only going to be a smaller difference once the bridge is complete.

[wriddle082]

They will most definitely take the new route to avoid both Nashville and Louisville if they're traveling between Memphis and Indianapolis.  Memphis is an origin and destination point for a lot of trucks.  They will do everything they can to avoid Nashville.  It will put a big strain on US 51 in West TN, but that mileage is small compared to the overall route.  And once TDOT finally wakes up and sees the impact this will have on 51, they'll finalize prioritize building 69.

[The Ghostbuster]

Tennessee will wise up and build Interstate 69? Not until Congress gives them federal funding to complete environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition and construction (as stated by Wikipedia's Interstate 69 in Tennessee page). Like everything else, Tennessee will likely get a raspberry from Congress about doing that. Also, there is the matter of constructing the Troy Bypass (which as far as I know doesn't have a construction date yet). But that's in Tennessee. As for the Ohio River Bridge, at least it is a go for being constructed within the next 10 years.

[Revive 755]

I think they should build the four lanes with shoulders and leave a ROW for a parallel twin (if needed).

And without any design features that preclude switching it to one way traffic in the future if a twin is built (the center tower designs of the Sunshine Skyway or the Clark Bridge at Alton, IL come to mind).

[TheCleanDemon]

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

It is anecdotal, but I know people that are already taking 69 south out of Indy and going through Evansville to get to Nashville even with the ongoing construction and having to cross the "Twin Bridges" in Evansville.

[hbelkins]

They will most definitely take the new route to avoid both Nashville and Louisville if they're traveling between Memphis and Indianapolis.  Memphis is an origin and destination point for a lot of trucks.  They will do everything they can to avoid Nashville.  It will put a big strain on US 51 in West TN, but that mileage is small compared to the overall route.  And once TDOT finally wakes up and sees the impact this will have on 51, they'll finalize prioritize building 69.

Memphis and Indy? Sure, because it appears to be a more direct route through a rural area with no big cities. I"ve already vowed never to drive I-40 between Nashville and Memphis ever again. That road is just so long and aggravating.

[ITB]

According to an Inside Indiana Business report, if the full $632 million federal grant, which Indiana and Kentucky applied for last month, is awarded in timely fashion, construction of the Ohio bridge would likely be moved up to 2025, two years earlier than previously planned.

The article should be available to read for most who wish to do so. However, if one regularly browses material on the Inside Indiana Business website and is not a subscriber, access to the article may not be granted in full.