I-169 is now designated in KY. The 3rd in the title is for the third I-169 that is proposed to exist.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on May 07, 2017, 05:12:14 PM
I-169 is now designated in KY. The 3rd in the title is for the third I-169 that is proposed to exist.
where is this supposed to be? i can't find a map of the routing.
The Breathitt Parkway from where I-69 turns west on the Western Kentucky down to its end at I-24. A good 3di for Nashville/Atlanta/Birmingham bound traffic.
Holy plot twist, Batman
should be even. I-x24 would have worked also.
That section of the parkway needs more work than just the old toll booth interchange converted. The pavement for about half the length of the roadway is the original concrete and in very bad shape.
This bill also introduced Interstate 57 in Arkansas. I don't like the numbering choice, but I am excited about the designation. Should be 469. (Not 269 due to a proposal for a eastern Mayfields, KY loop I heard of a while ago through a friend)
Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_169_(Kentucky)
google calls it the pennyrile. also i thought the remains of the stub in eville will be i-169
It will be Future I-169 until any necessary upgrades can be made.
Where's the documentation? Is it found on the KYTC's site, or on AASHTO's SCOURN submissions page?
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 08, 2017, 01:09:56 PM
Where's the documentation? Is it found on the KYTC's site, or on AASHTO's SCOURN submissions page?
President Trump signed it into law Friday night:
Quote from: Grzrd on May 06, 2017, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 22, 2016, 10:20:45 AM
Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul has introduced a proposed amendment, SA 3967, to SA 3896 to House Appropriations Bill H.R. 2777 (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/3967/text/2162137) that designates the Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from I-24 to I-69 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8771637,-87.6869152,107843m/data=!3m1!1e3) as I-169
President Trump signed H.R. 244 into law last night (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf) that designates the Breathitt Parkway between I-24 and !-69 as I-169 (p. 663/708 of pdf):
Quote
SEC. 423. (a) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following:
"˜"˜(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
"˜"˜(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.''.
(b) Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence
by striking "˜"˜and subsection (c)(83)'' and inserting "˜"˜subsection (c)(83),subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)''.
(c) Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end
the following: "˜"˜The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I—57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I—169.''.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg2224262#msg2224262) thread)
You missed this doozy snuck in by Steve King (R-IA):
QuoteSEC. 424. (a) The State of Missouri shall be required to allow the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a stretch of Interstate Route 55 south of Saint Louis, and shall post suitable signs indicating the sponsorship should the Ku Klux Klan take part in the Adopt a Highway program.
fake news
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2017, 03:47:21 PM
You missed this doozy snuck in by Steve King (R-IA):
QuoteSEC. 424. (a) The State of Missouri shall be required to allow the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a stretch of Interstate Route 55 south of Saint Louis, and shall post suitable signs indicating the sponsorship should the Ku Klux Klan take part in the Adopt a Highway program.
fake news
Not sure if this is real or if SPUI is trolling again, but there was no need for any federal legislation for this. Every time the KKK or a similarly controversial organization has been denied the opportunity to adopt a highway by a state DOT, they've won court challenges. I remember a brouhaha over some organization adopting a stretch of highway in northern Kentucky. I can't remember which group it was, but I saw their sign on KY 20 last week. Someone had vandalized it.
Is the Audubon Parkway still planned to become an x-69 as well?
OK. I didn't realize it happened so soon.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 08, 2017, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2017, 03:47:21 PM
You missed this doozy snuck in by Steve King (R-IA):
QuoteSEC. 424. (a) The State of Missouri shall be required to allow the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a stretch of Interstate Route 55 south of Saint Louis, and shall post suitable signs indicating the sponsorship should the Ku Klux Klan take part in the Adopt a Highway program.
fake news
Not sure if this is real or if SPUI is trolling again, but there was no need for any federal legislation for this. Every time the KKK or a similarly controversial organization has been denied the opportunity to adopt a highway by a state DOT, they've won court challenges. I remember a brouhaha over some organization adopting a stretch of highway in northern Kentucky. I can't remember which group it was, but I saw their sign on KY 20 last week. Someone had vandalized it.
It's real. I haven't seen SPUI troll before...
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:33:33 PM
Is the Audubon Parkway still planned to become an x-69 as well?
It currently is designated as Future Interstate 369.
Quote from: english si on May 08, 2017, 02:54:42 AM
should be even. I-x24 would have worked also.
Odd is better. It leads away from I-69 (or I-24 for that matter) and doesn't have a chance of returning.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on May 09, 2017, 11:00:20 AM
It's real. I haven't seen SPUI troll before...
Then you must be new around these parts. :-D :-D :-D
If they are going to give Kentucky's parkways Interstate designations, they should next give the remainder of the Western Kentucky Parkway an Interstate designation.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on May 09, 2017, 11:00:20 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 08, 2017, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2017, 03:47:21 PM
You missed this doozy snuck in by Steve King (R-IA):
QuoteSEC. 424. (a) The State of Missouri shall be required to allow the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a stretch of Interstate Route 55 south of Saint Louis, and shall post suitable signs indicating the sponsorship should the Ku Klux Klan take part in the Adopt a Highway program.
fake news
Not sure if this is real or if SPUI is trolling again, but there was no need for any federal legislation for this. Every time the KKK or a similarly controversial organization has been denied the opportunity to adopt a highway by a state DOT, they've won court challenges. I remember a brouhaha over some organization adopting a stretch of highway in northern Kentucky. I can't remember which group it was, but I saw their sign on KY 20 last week. Someone had vandalized it.
It's real. I haven't seen SPUI troll before...
It's not real. Besides, Steve King is from Iowa.
Section 424:
QuoteSEC. 424. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill
material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251, et seq.) for the activities identified in subparagraphs (A)
and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A),
(C))
However, Section 423
almost sounds made-up...
QuoteSEC. 423. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless
such network is designed to block access to pornography websites.
Section 425 deals with trying to use US-made steel and concrete, except for exemptions and loopholes for trying to get out of said ideals.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 09, 2017, 06:07:45 PM
If they are going to give Kentucky's parkways Interstate designations, the should next give the remainder of the Western Kentucky Parkway an Interstate designation.
My option on that is to extend I-71 from Louisville and split it off at Elizabethtown, but then you have that section from Elizabethtown to Lexington of the Blue Grass Parkway that is by itself.
Quote from: US 41 on May 08, 2017, 09:33:50 AM
Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_169_(Kentucky)
I read the Wikipedia articles for both I-169 and the Pennyrile Parkway. Even though Trump signed a bill into law designating the Pennyrile between I-24 and the I-69/WK Parkway interchange as I-169, I think Wikipedia may be jumping the gun on the re-designation. At a minimum, updates to route signage will need to be accomplished, and the FHWA may also (and very likely) stipulate that Kentucky must bring any substandard sections up to interstate standards before putting up any I-169 signs. I see a transition from the Pennyrile Parkway to I-169 taking several months optimistically, to several years in a worst-case scenario if major upgrades are required to complete the transition.
I can't remember the other exits north of there, but at least exit 12 for the north west bypass of Hopkinsville is one of those exits where they had a toll booth underneath the overpass, and will have to reconfigure to a diamond.
what did one of those old toll booths look like on the ky pkwys?
Quote from: Life in Paradise on May 10, 2017, 07:12:25 AM
I can't remember the other exits north of there, but at least exit 12 for the north west bypass of Hopkinsville is one of those exits where they had a toll booth underneath the overpass, and will have to reconfigure to a diamond.
I believe that is the only one.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 10, 2017, 07:37:10 AM
what did one of those old toll booths look like on the ky pkwys?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6169/6182356685_23be9f9aaa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aqjcfD)1990s Negative Scans - 33 (https://flic.kr/p/aqjcfD) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
This was looking eastbound on the Cumberland Parkway at the US 68-KY 80 exit at Edmonton. It looks pretty similar to every other toll both located at an exit, except for the KY 11 exit (Exit 33) on the Mountain Parkway, which was actually built on the bridge since KY 11 ran under the four-lane due to the terrain of the area.
This article (http://www.kentuckynewera.com/web/article_52bb27b0-353d-11e7-91bd-8bc3ab2034a3.html) is about the new designation and talks about work that need to be done before it is all finalized:
Quote
The quest to designate the Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway as an interstate highway involved decades of effort. With President Donald Trump signing the designation into law May 5, residents of Hopkinsville and the surrounding area prepare for the benefits of living in a city on a federal thoroughfare ....
An omnibus bill, containing many appropriations for multiple states, including the parkway interstate designation, was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives Jan. 4. President Trump signed the bill into law, after it passed both the House and the Senate, May 5 ....
Pennyrile Parkway may become I-169 or it may have a different name, to be determined at a later date. Two exits, the KY-1682 interchange and the Nortonville exit need improvements. Part of the funding for the improvements have already been allocated in Kentucky's six year highway plan.
The state has 20 years to complete the updates before the designation will be nullified. Before that time, the iconic blue shield signs of the interstate system may be erected along the parkway.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 01:43:15 PM
This article (http://www.kentuckynewera.com/web/article_52bb27b0-353d-11e7-91bd-8bc3ab2034a3.html) is about the new designation and talks about work that need to be done before it is all finalized:
Quote
With President Donald Trump signing the designation into law May 5, residents of Hopkinsville and the surrounding area prepare for the benefits of living in a city on a federal thoroughfare ....
Did Carl Rogers write this story? And what about I-24? Hopkinsville's been near it for years. In fact, the city limits have been extended out Alt. US 41 to meet I-24. I'm surprised they haven't been extended out the Pennyrile extension as well.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 01:43:15 PMQuoteTwo exits, the KY-1682 interchange and the Nortonville exit need improvements. Part of the funding for the improvements have already been allocated in Kentucky's six year highway plan.
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m12!1m3!1d3219.724444854816!2d-87.44074907429814!3d37.19215748366523!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494442750089" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not sure what's wrong with this exit.
I think the US 62 bridge over the Parkway has issues. It may be vertical clearance and/or structural issues. I remember this bridge had braces around the center peer for up to 20 years that were only removed in recent years.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 10, 2017, 03:00:16 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 01:43:15 PMQuoteTwo exits, the KY-1682 interchange and the Nortonville exit need improvements. Part of the funding for the improvements have already been allocated in Kentucky's six year highway plan.
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m12!1m3!1d3219.724444854816!2d-87.44074907429814!3d37.19215748366523!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494442750089" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not sure what's wrong with this exit.
Also not sure what's wrong with not being able to imbed a Google Maps image here. :banghead: :pan:
Should be 469. (Not 269 due to a proposal for a eastern Mayfields, KY loop I heard of a while ago through a friend)
[/quote]
Another I-269??? Did not know about this, there is already a soon to be I-269 outer Memphis by-Pass and about 2 miles of it in TN and MS are already signed! :hmmm:
Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2017, 12:19:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 10, 2017, 03:00:16 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 01:43:15 PMQuoteTwo exits, the KY-1682 interchange and the Nortonville exit need improvements. Part of the funding for the improvements have already been allocated in Kentucky's six year highway plan.
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m12!1m3!1d3219.724444854816!2d-87.44074907429814!3d37.19215748366523!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494442750089" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not sure what's wrong with this exit.
Also not sure what's wrong with not being able to imbed a Google Maps image here. :banghead: :pan:
Because the forum doesn't have 'iframe' support.
How much of the Southern end of the Pennyrile Parkway is already built to Interstate standards?
Is it reasonable to think that I-169 could be signed from I-24 north to US 68 in short order?
Quote from: Life in Paradise on May 09, 2017, 09:31:51 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 09, 2017, 06:07:45 PM
If they are going to give Kentucky's parkways Interstate designations, the should next give the remainder of the Western Kentucky Parkway an Interstate designation.
My option on that is to extend I-71 from Louisville and split it off at Elizabethtown, but then you have that section from Elizabethtown to Lexington of the Blue Grass Parkway that is by itself.
Interesting, but if you are going to do that, I would say the logical thing at that point would be to continue I-71 to Memphis, and the remainder of the proposed I-69 route, and extend I-69 south through Hopkinsville, ending at I-24. Much simpler than having an interchange in Kentucky where I-71 turns into I-69, while I-69 turns into I-169.
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be an even 3di, not odd 3di? Why is it I-169?
Quote from: Strider on May 12, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be a 2di? Why is it I-169?
way too short to waste a 2d on, and yes i know i-97 exists
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2017, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on May 12, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be a 2di? Why is it I-169?
way too short to waste a 2d on, and yes i know i-97 exists
Wahoops! I just realized my error. I meant to say "EVEN 3di", not 2di.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2017, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on May 12, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be a 2di? Why is it I-169?
way too short to waste a 2d on, and yes i know i-97 exists
(cough, cough...)
I-41
(cough)
Mike
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 11, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2017, 12:19:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 10, 2017, 03:00:16 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 01:43:15 PMQuoteTwo exits, the KY-1682 interchange and the Nortonville exit need improvements. Part of the funding for the improvements have already been allocated in Kentucky's six year highway plan.
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m12!1m3!1d3219.724444854816!2d-87.44074907429814!3d37.19215748366523!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494442750089" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not sure what's wrong with this exit.
Also not sure what's wrong with not being able to imbed a Google Maps image here. :banghead: :pan:
Because the forum doesn't have 'iframe' support.
Any particular reason? It would make embedding Google Maps images a lot easier.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 13, 2017, 02:43:43 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on May 11, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2017, 12:19:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 10, 2017, 03:00:16 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 10, 2017, 01:43:15 PMQuoteTwo exits, the KY-1682 interchange and the Nortonville exit need improvements. Part of the funding for the improvements have already been allocated in Kentucky's six year highway plan.
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m12!1m3!1d3219.724444854816!2d-87.44074907429814!3d37.19215748366523!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494442750089" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not sure what's wrong with this exit.
Also not sure what's wrong with not being able to imbed a Google Maps image here. :banghead: :pan:
Because the forum doesn't have 'iframe' support.
Any particular reason? It would make embedding Google Maps images a lot easier.
Because we would need to install some additional mods to get it to work.
^^^
For some reason I thought it was a standard feature included in the forum software and had been specifically excluded from use here.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2017, 10:24:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2017, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on May 12, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be a 2di? Why is it I-169?
way too short to waste a 2d on, and yes i know i-97 exists
(cough, cough...)
I-41
(cough)
Mike
That's really not a bad idea. I would go ahead and co-sign it with I-69 to Evansville, maybe even the same with I-24 to Chattanooga. It might get Indiana to put it on a 30 year timeframe to upgrade US 41 between Evansville and Chicago. Not only would it give a true direct route from Chicago to Nashville and south, it would alleviate a lot of traffic off of an over-crowded I-65.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2017, 10:24:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2017, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on May 12, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be a 2di? Why is it I-169?
way too short to waste a 2d on, and yes i know i-97 exists
(cough, cough...)
I-41
(cough)
Mike
I-37 & I-45
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2017, 03:46:36 PM
^^^
For some reason I thought it was a standard feature included in the forum software and had been specifically excluded from use here.
Nope, not a built in feature for SMF forums.
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 15, 2017, 12:06:51 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 12, 2017, 10:24:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2017, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Strider on May 12, 2017, 01:46:55 PM
Hmm.. if it connects I-24 with I-69, shouldn't it be a 2di? Why is it I-169?
way too short to waste a 2d on, and yes i know i-97 exists
(cough, cough...)
That's really not a bad idea. I would go ahead and co-sign it with I-69 to Evansville, maybe even the same with I-24 to Chattanooga. It might get Indiana to put it on a 30 year timeframe to upgrade US 41 between Evansville and Chicago. Not only would it give a true direct route from Chicago to Nashville and south, it would alleviate a lot of traffic off of an over-crowded I-65.
I-41
(cough)
Mike
Have it feed into Chicagoland via IL 394 and replace I-94 through the city, with I-94 to then replace I-294 around it.
:poke:
:nod:
Mike
Interstate 94 and Interstate 294 will likely stay on their existing alignments - for all eternity.
Back to Kentucky's future Interstate 169, have future Interstate 169 signs been posted along the corridor?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 15, 2017, 02:47:51 PM
Back to Kentucky's future Interstate 169, have future Interstate 169 signs been posted along the corridor?
Not yet. It will probably be awhile before they are put up.
It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 18, 2017, 07:47:53 PM
It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.
I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 08:12:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 18, 2017, 07:47:53 PM
It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.
I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.
If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 19, 2017, 06:07:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 08:12:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 18, 2017, 07:47:53 PM
It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.
I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.
If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.
could have fooled me... :poke:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8526348,-89.9877712,3a,75y,330.03h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQYiT6A3J2GHwQu_OuISkpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8526348,-89.9877712,3a,75y,330.03h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQYiT6A3J2GHwQu_OuISkpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Quote from: dvferyance on May 19, 2017, 06:07:07 PM
If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.
It's not a N-S interstate except in the loosest sense of designation; it's a
diagonal with a few right-angles thrown in for good measure (like the parkway configuration in KY and even the E-W segment in Michigan) -- and cost-cutting (again, see KY!).
Quote from: dvferyance on May 19, 2017, 06:07:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 08:12:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 18, 2017, 07:47:53 PM
It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.
I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.
If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.
There's a much better chance of TN finishing their part than there is MS, AR and LA. AR and LA are focused on I-49 and MS is broke. TN may be having funding issues, but MS is worse off.
There's precedent for N/S interstates having E/W alignments. I-85 in NC uses I-40 between Greensboro and Hillsborough. I-69 in MI also runs E/W between Lansing and Port Huron.
Quote from: LM117 on May 20, 2017, 04:31:32 AM
There's a much better chance of TN finishing their part than there is MS, AR and LA. AR and LA are focused on I-49 and MS is broke. TN may be having funding issues, but MS is worse off.
The one thing that is prompting what development there is along the I-69 corridor in AR is a sense of historical resentment that pervades the southern tier of the state regarding attention paid to the region by the state government and its agencies. Tired of seeing Little Rock and NWA get most of the attention -- and funding -- the region is flexing what political muscle it has -- as witnessed by the activity surrounding the Monticello bypass, the 530 extension, and the nascent plans to construct at least a couple of expressway lanes over the I-69 route east to the site of the Great River bridge. Primary state focus may indeed be with I-49 (and the US 67 corridor as well), but it seems as if the south-state region is positioning itself as the Glenn Close of Arkansas:
it will not be ignored. Some sort of progress -- even halting -- will likely characterize the I-69 efforts within the state; indeed, I-49 may likely become reality well prior to a single continuous stretch of full freeway (save an interchange or two) being deployed along the 69 corridor. It won't be a priority, but it will get
some attention.
Quote from: LM117 on May 20, 2017, 04:31:32 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 19, 2017, 06:07:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 18, 2017, 08:12:36 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 18, 2017, 07:47:53 PM
It should be part of I-69. I doubt it will ever be completed all the way to Texas. Hopkinsville and I-24 is a logical southern end point for I-69.
I disagree. Even if it doesn't reach Texas, once Tennessee builds their part, I-69 would link Memphis to Indianapolis and Michigan. I-69's connection with I-55 would also give New Orleans another link to Indianapolis without having to use I-10/I-59/I-65, effectively bypassing Birmingham, Nashville and Louisville.
If it does ever get to Memphis. Heading west to I-24 doesn't make any sense for a north south interstate.
There's a much better chance of TN finishing their part than there is MS, AR and LA. AR and LA are focused on I-49 and MS is broke. TN may be having funding issues, but MS is worse off.
There's precedent for N/S interstates having E/W alignments. I-85 in NC uses I-40 between Greensboro and Hillsborough. I-69 in MI also runs E/W between Lansing and Port Huron.
I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 18, 2017, 01:29:01 PM
I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.
Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis? The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes. You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone. That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg. Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end. It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.
I notice that Google doesn't even suggest going that way as a possible route between those two areas. The choices are TN 14 and I-55.
They should designate this as I-69E.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 19, 2017, 01:40:34 PM
They should designate this as I-69E.
:pan: :pan: :pan:
TX is bad enough :bigass:
letter suffixes should be banned on all interstates, make them all 3 digits.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 19, 2017, 02:02:36 PM
letter suffixes should be banned on all interstates, make them all 3 digits.
AASHTO actually called for the elimination of suffixed Interstate routes back around 1976 or so; most of the "offenders" were gone by the early '80's (with 35's pair of splits being "grandfathered in" because they served twinned cities and eventually reunited). It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified). I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say. In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!
While I disagree with the elimination of directionally-suffixed routes, the E-C-W splits of I-69 are silly. It would have been better to keep the center leg as regular I-69. Precedent: the existence of US 70N, US 70 (instead of US 70C) and US 70S in Tennessee.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 20, 2017, 04:37:39 PM
While I disagree with the elimination of directionally-suffixed routes, the E-C-W splits of I-69 are silly. It would have been better to keep the center leg as regular I-69. Precedent: the existence of US 70N, US 70 (instead of US 70C) and US 70S in Tennessee.
It
is pretty nonsensical at that -- if nothing else due to the dual "split points" along US 59. Apparently, according to the reports about mileposting in the Houston area, the main I-69 trunk is to begin at Victoria, not George West. The designation of the stretch that will, if all plans are eventually followed, extend between the two will be strange at best (69C? 69W?). Since this is the first "trident" of specified designators that I've seen in the era of either US or Interstate highways (the TN situation, which happened well after the N-S split existed on US 70, notwithstanding), there's no precedent or even guidelines to follow. So either number will be pretty much a coin-flip (or ass-pull!). It may have been better to extend the I-69 trunk down to George West and just let I-69E peel off of it at Victoria. I suppose that TXDOT and/or AASHTO figured that 69E was going to be the most heavily-trafficked leg (no shit!) and that Victoria was a more appropriate place to position the major split into, simply, east and west (and let Central more or less exist as an afterthought). IMHO, it would be better if they'd just renumber I-69C as I-269 (legitimate, as the south end is at I-2) -- but the powers that be still claim to be bound by the original legislation that specifies "I-69 Central". Awkward -- but it looks like we'll just have to grit our teeth and put up with the nonsense. :rolleyes:
Agreed. The configuration of I-69 in southern Texas is crazy. They could have just as easily readjusted I-37 to the eastern route (making Corpus Christi's road a 3-d), I-69 to the middle route, and created an I-6 from Laredo to connect. If they can get the Feds to create I-2 and I-14, they could certainly do it for I-6.
69e should be 37, 69c should be 69, 69w should be 269, and 49 south of 10 in LA should be i-6
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2017, 10:07:37 AM
69e should be 37, 69c should be 69, 69w should be 269, and 49 south of 10 in LA should be i-6
Agree to the first 3. I would disagree about I-49 south of Lafayette. It just sounds better to say that I-49 runs from New Orleans to Kansas City.
Quote from: rte66man on July 19, 2017, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 18, 2017, 01:29:01 PM
I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.
Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis? The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes. You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone. That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg. Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end. It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.
That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?
Quote from: dvferyance on July 25, 2017, 09:52:55 PM
Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis? The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes. You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone. That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg. Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end. It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.
That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?
[/quote]
The reasoning is that an increase in traffic on I-69/US 51 would funnel that traffic over the I-55 Mississippi River bridge and into the substandard cloverleaf in Memphis.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 25, 2017, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 25, 2017, 09:52:55 PM
Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis? The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes. You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone. That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg. Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end. It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.
That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?
The reasoning is that an increase in traffic on I-69/US 51 would funnel that traffic over the I-55 Mississippi River bridge and into the substandard cloverleaf in Memphis.
[/quote]
aren't they fixing that stupid cloverleaf?
Well just take the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi then. You can get right back to I-55 easily via I-240.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 26, 2017, 10:10:49 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 25, 2017, 10:24:56 PM
The reasoning is that an increase in traffic on I-69/US 51 would funnel that traffic over the I-55 Mississippi River bridge and into the substandard cloverleaf in Memphis.
aren't they fixing that stupid cloverleaf?
Apparently the plans to throughput I-55 through the cloverleaf location are still in play, but funding keeps getting delayed -- not surprising, as the project primarily benefits I-55 drivers ostensibly using TN as a "land bridge" between MS and AR. That being said, the I-55 bridge -- as opposed to I-40 to the north -- remains the crossing of choice when attempting to access certain regional features from the west, particularly if one's immediate destination is the Memphis airport, the FedEx hub, Graceland, the N. MS suburbs and/or Tunica, and even I-22. In the long run,
both crossings are regionally vital; replacement of the cloverleaf is long overdue!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 26, 2017, 11:17:26 AM
Well just take the I-40 bridge over the Mississippi then. You can get right back to I-55 easily via I-240.
As the primary access to downtown Memphis from both west (40) and south (240), it's invariably congested much of the time and is not, except for the sporadic detour, a viable alternative to I-55 -- it certainly wouldn't readily handle the combined traffic of both crossings anywhere near peak hours without major delays.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 25, 2017, 09:52:55 PM
Quote from: rte66man on July 19, 2017, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 18, 2017, 01:29:01 PM
I believe it when I see it. I never thought there was any need for 2 parallel interstates only 20 miles apart. Memphis traffic can already take I-55 to I-155 to US 51 to get to I-24 and then I-69. Nearly all of that is a freeway as is. Spending millions to extend it down to Memphis to save like 15 minuets just seems like a waste to me. I-69 in Tennessee is not needed unless it's going to extend even further south which I doubt it ever will.
Have you ever driven US51 from Dyersburg to Memphis? The proposed I-69 will save HOURS, not 15 minutes. You would save 15 minutes just bypassing Millington alone. That doesn't even cover Atoka, Brighton, Covington, Ripley and south Dyersburg. Plus the Memphis/Arkansas bridge at Memphis is a terrible bottleneck at the east end. It may be another 15-20 years but IMO it is badly needed for intrastate traffic.
That part of US 51 wasn't part of my suggested route. The route I mentioned was I-55 north then head over on I-155 to US 51. The map shows US 51 as a freeway north of Dyersburg. Not much longer then building another freeway between Memphis and Dyersburg. Why is another freeway needed there when you already got I-55 closeby?
You are quoted as saying that a parallel interstate isn't needed between Dyersburg and Memphis. My response was to that statement.
The distance between two fixed points: the east end of I-155 near Dyersburg and the I-55/240 interchange in south Memphis is, as the nearest roadway to crow-flying goes (US 51 + TN 300 + I-40 + I-240) is 86 miles; using I-155 into Missouri and then I-55 south to the southern point is 123 miles -- a 43% difference in mileage -- hardly insubstantial. Once I-69 is completed south to Dyersburg, I-155/55 may be utilized as a temporary all-Interstate route to Memphis -- but it's hardly a permanent solution.
Someone jumped the gun on Google Maps and got I-169 marked.
http://archive.is/HGXOm
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 27, 2017, 01:03:03 PM
Someone jumped the gun on Google Maps and got I-169 marked.
http://archive.is/HGXOm
Seems to be a recurring theme these days -- something gets commissioned as a future route, and it shows up on Google in short order, only to be deleted not too long afterward. Guess that's just intrinsic to the open Google Map process.
One example of a jump-of-the-gun posting and removal on Google Maps was Interstate 587 in North Carolina. Personally, I don't mind the premature posting of Interstate routes on Google Maps.
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2017, 03:40:19 AM
The distance between two fixed points: the east end of I-155 near Dyersburg and the I-55/240 interchange in south Memphis is, as the nearest roadway to crow-flying goes (US 51 + TN 300 + I-40 + I-240) is 86 miles; using I-155 into Missouri and then I-55 south to the southern point is 123 miles -- a 43% difference in mileage -- hardly insubstantial. Once I-69 is completed south to Dyersburg, I-155/55 may be utilized as a temporary all-Interstate route to Memphis -- but it's hardly a permanent solution.
Exactly. I travel from Evansville to Memphis regularly, and tried the 155-55 option exactly once. Not only does it add a substantial amount of miles to Memphis proper, most of the growth areas, and new business sections, are to the east...Cordova, Germantown, Collierville, etc. which adds even more miles and traffic to the trip.
What is the planned routing of 69 into Memphis? I do think you could make a good argument to drop it south around Covington, and link into I-40 and 1-269 at the same area.
At the pace Tennessee is moving on this project, I doubt any of us will be here to see it completed between Dyersburg and Memphis anyway.
Quote from: Captain Jack on September 05, 2017, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2017, 03:40:19 AM
The distance between two fixed points: the east end of I-155 near Dyersburg and the I-55/240 interchange in south Memphis is, as the nearest roadway to crow-flying goes (US 51 + TN 300 + I-40 + I-240) is 86 miles; using I-155 into Missouri and then I-55 south to the southern point is 123 miles -- a 43% difference in mileage -- hardly insubstantial. Once I-69 is completed south to Dyersburg, I-155/55 may be utilized as a temporary all-Interstate route to Memphis -- but it's hardly a permanent solution.
Exactly. I travel from Evansville to Memphis regularly, and tried the 155-55 option exactly once. Not only does it add a substantial amount of miles to Memphis proper, most of the growth areas, and new business sections, are to the east...Cordova, Germantown, Collierville, etc. which adds even more miles and traffic to the trip.
What is the planned routing of 69 into Memphis? I do think you could make a good argument to drop it south around Covington, and link into I-40 and 1-269 at the same area.
At the pace Tennessee is moving on this project, I doubt any of us will be here to see it completed between Dyersburg and Memphis anyway.
it will enter at tn 300, then shoot straight south using 40, 240, and 55
Been a while. Anyone know if I-169 is signed?
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on October 26, 2017, 09:53:12 AM
Been a while. Anyone know if I-169 is signed?
I'm betting it only has 'future corridor' signage if anything.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 26, 2017, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on October 26, 2017, 09:53:12 AM
Been a while. Anyone know if I-169 is signed?
I'm betting it only has 'future corridor' signage if anything.
And I'm doubting if it even has that yet. Typically, KYTC will do a press release and maybe even a sign unveiling ceremony about such things. There's been nothing publicized yet.
I might be able to check that out next weekend when I go to western Kentucky for the meet.
Maybe they will release a press release for "Future I-169" signs next year. They have at least one exit (Exit 12) that will need to be reconfigured, and possible one other before it can be approved. I would rather they get all the work done on the Purchase Parkway I-69 section done first. Hopefully they are within a year of that completion.
Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682? It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already. It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 26, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682? It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already. It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.
If they are going to sign it up to 1682, you might as well sign it the entire length to the I-69 interchange. There is no difference in build or roadway from 41A to I-69. If the Hopkinsville section can be signed, all of it can be.
I will add that this section could desperately use a resurfacing. It's getting rather bumpy, especially southbound.
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 26, 2017, 10:54:36 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 26, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682? It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already. It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.
If they are going to sign it up to 1682, you might as well sign it the entire length to the I-69 interchange. There is no difference in build or roadway from 41A to I-69. If the Hopkinsville section can be signed, all of it can be.
I will add that this section could desperately use a resurfacing. It's getting rather bumpy, especially southbound.
Taking a closer look on Google maps, it looks like the intersection with KY-1682 is the exception with a bow tie interchange.
So I guess the question is how quickly the KY Transportation cabinet it going to get that fixed.
If it were me deciding, I would get that fixed right away, because I-169 is low hanging fruit, and for the cost of one interchange and some resurfacing (which has to be done anyway), you have a new interstate, which is visible on the map and shows progress even to non-road geeks.
You are correct with 1682 being the odd interchange. It was a toll plaza on the original parkway.
IMO, I would like to scrap I-169 and use I-61 from Evansville to Nashville. On what was a direct route on US 41, and a primary L&N line, it will now be replaced with the following...US 41 to I-69 to I-169 to I-24. Just co-sign it with I-69 to Nortonville, stand alone to I-24 and co-sign with I-24 to Nashville. It would also look a lot cleaner with a continuous north-south route down through KY instead of (3) different routes splitting from a simple 4-direction interchange.
If this had been North Carolina, they would have applied for I-61 ten years ago, and it would be signed, plus I-67 would be running from Bowling Green to Owensboro, or further.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 28, 2017, 01:08:26 PM
If this had been North Carolina, they would have applied for I-61 ten years ago, and it would be signed, plus I-67 would be running from Bowling Green to Owensboro, or further.
If this was North Carolina, it would just be another disjointed section of I-74.
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 28, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 28, 2017, 01:08:26 PM
If this had been North Carolina, they would have applied for I-61 ten years ago, and it would be signed, plus I-67 would be running from Bowling Green to Owensboro, or further.
If this was North Carolina, it would just be another disjointed section of I-74.
From what I understand, the Owensboro mayor who was pushing for Interstate service to his city (and, for a while, to reroute I-69 through his town) is no longer in office. Otherwise, there might have been pressure to combine the Natcher & Audubon parkways, along with the connecting Bypass US 60 segment, into one trunk Interstate (61? 63? 67?). As it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!).
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 09:13:20 AM
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 26, 2017, 10:54:36 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 26, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682? It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already. It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.
If they are going to sign it up to 1682, you might as well sign it the entire length to the I-69 interchange. There is no difference in build or roadway from 41A to I-69. If the Hopkinsville section can be signed, all of it can be.
I will add that this section could desperately use a resurfacing. It's getting rather bumpy, especially southbound.
Taking a closer look on Google maps, it looks like the intersection with KY-1682 is the exception with a bow tie interchange.
So I guess the question is how quickly the KY Transportation cabinet it going to get that fixed.
If it were me deciding, I would get that fixed right away, because I-169 is low hanging fruit, and for the cost of one interchange and some resurfacing (which has to be done anyway), you have a new interstate, which is visible on the map and shows progress even to non-road geeks.
There may be some ramp length or bridge clearance issues, such as there were on both the WK (the roadway was depressed under two bridges to achieve the necessary clearance) and Pennyrile (ramp length issues in a couple of places, including the Mortons Gap exit just north of the WK).
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2017, 04:02:00 PMAs it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!).
Not necessarily. There are a bunch of projects in the plans for I-66, including in the statewide SHIFT priorities.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2017, 08:14:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2017, 04:02:00 PMAs it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!).
Not necessarily. There are a bunch of projects in the plans for I-66, including in the statewide SHIFT priorities.
Any way you could enlighten us non-KY folks with details or at least cites for plans pertaining to the I-66 corridor? Since the last on-paper definition of that corridor decidedly
didn't include a jog up the Natcher and back west on WKY, does that mean that KY 80/US 68 is still in the mix west to at least I-24 -- or possibly all the way west to the Mayfield area using the (relatively) new 80 expressway? Or is the main thrust of the projects aimed at finishing off the Somerset-London connection and/or upgrading the Hal Rogers? And what prompted the move to take this corridor off the "back burner", so to speak?
Quote from: sparker on October 30, 2017, 04:16:31 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2017, 08:14:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2017, 04:02:00 PMAs it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!).
Not necessarily. There are a bunch of projects in the plans for I-66, including in the statewide SHIFT priorities.
Any way you could enlighten us non-KY folks with details or at least cites for plans pertaining to the I-66 corridor? Since the last on-paper definition of that corridor decidedly didn't include a jog up the Natcher and back west on WKY, does that mean that KY 80/US 68 is still in the mix west to at least I-24 -- or possibly all the way west to the Mayfield area using the (relatively) new 80 expressway? Or is the main thrust of the projects aimed at finishing off the Somerset-London connection and/or upgrading the Hal Rogers? And what prompted the move to take this corridor off the "back burner", so to speak?
The focus on I-66 is the route of KY 80 and the Hal Rogers Parkway between Somerset and Hazard. I have no idea what might have brought this project back to life, but one guess is that the president of the Kentucky Senate is from Manchester (Clay County), which is 20 miles east of I-75 on the Hal Rogers Parkway.
Some rudimentary details can be found in the recently-developed statewide priority listing at http://transportation.ky.gov/SHIFT/Documents/Statewide%20Significance.pdf. Digging deeper into the highway plan posted elsewhere will reveal more details.
Is the Natcher Parkway ever going to become part of I-369? It seems like a natural extension.
US 77 south of Kingsville does not need to be a freeway. There is very little along that route. A couple of bypasses and a few interchanges should be sufficient. Waste of money.
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2017, 04:49:49 PM
Is the Natcher Parkway ever going to become part of I-369? It seems like a natural extension.
The Natcher was designated as future I-165 at the last AASHTO SCOURN meeting; no formal request to designate the Audubon as an Interstate has been submitted; the I-369 speculation of several years ago seems not to have gained much traction since. But now that I-169 is functionally a reality, maybe in the next year or two something will happen on that front -- but I wouldn't be surprised to see it touted as simply a I-165 extension, using Bypass 60 around Owensboro as a connector (and big-time TOTSO country with the current interchange arrangements).
It should be noted that the "Future I-69 Spur" signs that were along the Audubon a few years ago have been gone for a couple of years -- while there are still "Future I-66 Corridor" signs along the Cumberland.
I wasn't aware of that. I thought the Audubon was a done deal.
Didn't they just reconfigure the old toll plaza interchange to bring it to interstate standards?
Seems to me if they want interstate shields in Daviess County, that the Audubon would be a lot quicker conversion than the Natcher.
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 31, 2017, 11:41:07 AM
I wasn't aware of that. I thought the Audubon was a done deal.
Didn't they just reconfigure the old toll plaza interchange to bring it to interstate standards?
Seems to me if they want interstate shields in Daviess County, that the Audubon would be a lot quicker conversion than the Natcher.
Owensboro interests, including the former mayor, have been itching for Owensboro to be on a N-S Interstate corridor for quite some time now (an effort which produced some truly ridiculous proposals); so it's no surprise that the Natcher would be the first to be slated for those upgrades required to bring it up to Interstate standards (the usual "bowtie" former-toll-booth interchanges the most obvious among those). Either the Audubon or the US 231 corridor north into IN and I-64 would be the obvious "follow-ups"; IMO the former would likely be the path of least resistance, as it wouldn't require cooperation from IN actors, who already have plenty on their plate.
I would have thought any of this illogical directional concern would have began and ended with Ron Payne. I don't see I-67 or whatever you want to call it ever being constructed north of Owensboro. US 231 is lightly traveled now, and is more than adequate in its current form to serve this corridor. Just extend it from I-64 up to Jasper or even tie it in to I-69 and call it a day. How could INDOT ever justify converting 231 into an interstate, linking Jasper to Owensboro, when US 41 between Chicago and Evansville, and US 30 between Chicago and Ft. Wayne are both similar type roadways with much greater traffic counts? The direction of the highway makes no difference if no one is on it.
Huntsville seems to be quite prosperous with an E-W interstate spur. Like I mentioned previously, I think the Audubon is ready now, and you could put the signs up tomorrow theoretically. Why wait a decade or more to get the Natcher up to snuff?
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 31, 2017, 11:41:07 AM
Didn't they just reconfigure the old toll plaza interchange to bring it to interstate standards?
No, that was the KY 56 exit on the Pennyrile. The KY 416 exit on the Audubon is still a cloverleaf.
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 31, 2017, 12:55:21 PM
I would have thought any of this illogical directional concern would have began and ended with Ron Payne. I don't see I-67 or whatever you want to call it ever being constructed north of Owensboro. US 231 is lightly traveled now, and is more than adequate in its current form to serve this corridor. Just extend it from I-64 up to Jasper or even tie it in to I-69 and call it a day. How could INDOT ever justify converting 231 into an interstate, linking Jasper to Owensboro, when US 41 between Chicago and Evansville, and US 30 between Chicago and Ft. Wayne are both similar type roadways with much greater traffic counts? The direction of the highway makes no difference if no one is on it.
Huntsville seems to be quite prosperous with an E-W interstate spur. Like I mentioned previously, I think the Audubon is ready now, and you could put the signs up tomorrow theoretically. Why wait a decade or more to get the Natcher up to snuff?
Apparently the ghost of Mr. Payne still haunts area interests (forgive the prose; this
is Halloween!), who managed to get the Natcher designated as a future Interstate in last year's federal budget proceedings -- followed by the SCOURN action (I-165) last month. It's ironic that you mention Huntsville; the original suggested number for the Natcher was I-565! And it's likely that Huntsville would prosper with or without I-565 being posted on the spur simply because of it's status as one of the premier aerospace/technical centers in the South. But, like Owensboro, some parties there still want more -- in the form of an additional Memphis-Atlanta (or at least Rome) corridor passing through their city. But the virtual completion of I-22 has let much of
that air out of the proverbial balloon. Still, the concept is revived on a pretty regular basis, but the momentum dies out in time (likely when the lack of $$ to do so sinks in!). At least with Owensboro, there are extant upgradeable facilities extending in two directions; it's likely both will feature Interstate shields within 10-15 years.
Also, it's also possible that the lack of concrete plans for an Ohio River crossing for I-69 rendered the Audubon connection to that route a secondary concern; getting Interstate signage SE to I-65 might reflect shifted priorities within the realm of Owensboro interests.
67 will be coming to indiana, just from 465 up to michigan, along us 31. the southern 67 will only exist in your dreams :-D
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 31, 2017, 08:05:44 PM
67 will be coming to indiana, just from 465 up to michigan, along us 31. the southern 67 will only exist in your dreams :-D
When Ron Payne was still active, I always thought at some point he'd look at the Natcher-Bypass 60-Audubon continuum and think
"holy shit -- that'd make a great Interstate 63" and be on the horn to a KY congressperson or two ASAP to see if they could make that happen. I guess he just wasn't that on the ball about that; he might well have gotten Owensboro its trunk Interstate without having to deal with other states' priorities. I suppose things like that go by the wayside when you have a particular solution looking for a problem (or, in this case, application). Now, the point is moot with the designation of both I-165 and I-169, with the latter efficiently addressing the Nashville-Evansville Interstate situation.
Quote from: sparker on October 30, 2017, 09:12:02 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2017, 04:49:49 PM
Is the Natcher Parkway ever going to become part of I-369? It seems like a natural extension.
The Natcher was designated as future I-165 at the last AASHTO SCOURN meeting; no formal request to designate the Audubon as an Interstate has been submitted; the I-369 speculation of several years ago seems not to have gained much traction since. But now that I-169 is functionally a reality, maybe in the next year or two something will happen on that front -- but I wouldn't be surprised to see it touted as simply a I-165 extension, using Bypass 60 around Owensboro as a connector (and big-time TOTSO country with the current interchange arrangements).
It would be silly to give that route two numbers. It really should be something like I-469.
I drove the Pennyrile from the US 68/KY 80 exit north all the way to the Audubon Parkway last Friday. No Future I-169 Corridor signs to be found.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2017, 10:46:12 AM
I drove the Pennyrile from the US 68/KY 80 exit north all the way to the Audubon Parkway last Friday. No Future I-169 Corridor signs to be found.
RIP. I thought there would be. Darn.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 07, 2017, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2017, 10:46:12 AM
I drove the Pennyrile from the US 68/KY 80 exit north all the way to the Audubon Parkway last Friday. No Future I-169 Corridor signs to be found.
RIP. I thought there would be. Darn.
And the Future I-69 Spur signs on the Audubon are still gone as well.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2017, 02:55:49 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 07, 2017, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2017, 10:46:12 AM
I drove the Pennyrile from the US 68/KY 80 exit north all the way to the Audubon Parkway last Friday. No Future I-169 Corridor signs to be found.
RIP. I thought there would be. Darn.
And the Future I-69 Spur signs on the Audubon are still gone as well.
As far as I-169 goes, since it's already in service doing what it does (Nashville-Evansville freeway), "Future I-169" signs probably are not necessary (and a waste of signage $$); just wait until the I-standards modifications are done and put up I-169 reassurance shields, trailblazers, and appropriate BGS's at that time. Re the Audubon: would expect some sort of activity about re-designating a future Interstate about the time plans for the I-69 Ohio River bridge are finalized -- but not before. What it'll be called is anyone's guess -- I'd surmise, since the Natcher was designated I-165 recently, that it would simply be an extension of that route number, with the Owensboro bypass as the connector (that'd be the most rational choice, IMO!).
The number most often mentioned for the Audubon is I-369. But I find it interesting that the "future spur" signs have been taken down.
I'd still rather see KYTC request moving US 60 to the Audubon and renumber the current route as Alternate US 60 or something like that.
With the Spottsville bridge down to one lane for the foreseeable future (probably until the new bridge is built downstream - it's supposed to start late '18-early '19), such a move would make sense.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on November 12, 2017, 11:04:53 PM
I'd still rather see KYTC request moving US 60 to the Audubon and renumber the current route as Alternate US 60 or something like that.
With the Spottsville bridge down to one lane for the foreseeable future (probably until the new bridge is built downstream - it's supposed to start late '18-early '19), such a move would make sense.
Although AASHTO is a little more amenable toward placing US highways on existing toll roads these days (e.g. US 51 over the NWT north of Rockford, IL), doing so to bypass a situation (the substandard bridge mentioned here) that will only last 5 years at the outside isn't something they'd likely consider. Now -- signage of the Audubon as a temporary detour for US 60 would be another thing altogether. If the Spottsville bridge were completely unusable rather than down to a single lane (I'm assuming it's signal-controlled for the one-lane usage), that's be a different scenario. Now the current route is merely inconvenient rather than impassible -- but whether KYDOT elects to officially designate the Audubon as an interim substitute remains to be seen.
My guess as to why the "future spur" signs are now gone: with the Natcher now being future I-165, extending that designation around Owensboro on Bypass 60 and then onto the Audubon is in the works (likely in the initial talking stages); somewhere down the line conversion of the "bowtie" interchange on the Audubon to bring the route up to I-standards will be budgeted -- and the I-165 extension will be sought (the Owensboro trumpets would be dealt with much later).
The Audubon has been toll-free for 11 years now.
Re: Spottsville bridge on US 60.
The Audubon is being used as a temporary detour for wide loads, including farm traffic which will be allowed under escort. There are VMSes warning of slow traffic between exits on either side of the Green River bridge.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on November 13, 2017, 07:40:39 AM
The Audubon has been toll-free for 11 years now.
Brain-freeze; I should have known that. Nevertheless, I don't see them formally rerouting US 60 over the Audubon if the existing bridge is slated for replacement. Still think at some point (again, likely after the I-69 Ohio River bridge alignment is selected and construction is under way) it'll be an extension of the Natcher I-165 designation.
They didn't put US 62 on the BG or WK, they didn't put US 41 on the Pennyrile (in all actuality, they removed US 41 from part of the Pennyrile between Nortonville and Madisonville), and they didn't put KY 80 on the Cumberland or Hal Rogers, so they're not going to put US 60 on the Audubon.
Now if this had been Indiana, all of those things would have been done, US 60 would have been on the Audubon for the past 10 years, and would not have gone through Henderson, but taken the place of KY 425 Henderson bypass where Alt 41 would have joined it. Henderson would then have been devoid of any state highways.
Indiana is confusing in this regard. In urban areas, that seems to be the case, but yet, they have left US 41 through Evansville instead of routing it along I-64 & 69.
Another case is leaving US 41 where it is north of Terre Haute instead of moving it to the SR-63 alignment. Since 41 is a through route between Chicago and Evansville-Terre Haute, seems like this should have been done long before any of the more meaningless moves, such as the US routes in Indy and South Bend. Speaking of Terre Haute, why was US 40 routed onto I-70, yet returned to it's original alignment outside of town? Seems like if you are going to move it, just put it on I-70 the whole length of the state.
Personally, I prefer the US routes to remain on their original alignments, just seems like a lot of inconsistencies.
Quote from: Captain Jack on November 14, 2017, 11:30:07 AM
Indiana is confusing in this regard. In urban areas, that seems to be the case, but yet, they have left US 41 through Evansville instead of routing it along I-64 & 69.
Another case is leaving US 41 where it is north of Terre Haute instead of moving it to the SR-63 alignment. Since 41 is a through route between Chicago and Evansville-Terre Haute, seems like this should have been done long before any of the more meaningless moves, such as the US routes in Indy and South Bend. Speaking of Terre Haute, why was US 40 routed onto I-70, yet returned to it's original alignment outside of town? Seems like if you are going to move it, just put it on I-70 the whole length of the state.
Personally, I prefer the US routes to remain on their original alignments, just seems like a lot of inconsistencies.
because the city of terre haute wanted it turned over to them. i think it was a stupid idea.
I think that the cities have to come to some sort of agreement with the state before it can be turned over. Some do, and some refuse. For instance, the City of Newburgh allowed their streets to be taken off of state rolls since they wanted the right to say no trucks, and with a state highway, you can't do that. I don't think Evansville wants to maintain US 41's current route or that of highway 62 or 66 either. I'm still looking for a couple of roads to be dropped (east side IN 62) and shuffled over to the Lloyd Expressway.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 14, 2017, 12:35:39 PM
I think that the cities have to come to some sort of agreement with the state before it can be turned over. Some do, and some refuse. For instance, the City of Newburgh allowed their streets to be taken off of state rolls since they wanted the right to say no trucks, and with a state highway, you can't do that. I don't think Evansville wants to maintain US 41's current route or that of highway 62 or 66 either. I'm still looking for a couple of roads to be dropped (east side IN 62) and shuffled over to the Lloyd Expressway.
It's more or less a joint decision between the state and the city/county as to whether or not to move routes. In St Joseph and Marshall counties, the state wanted to give the old alignment of US 31 back to the counties. Marshall said yes, St. Joseph said no, so IN 931 ends right at the county line.
Quote from: cabiness42 on November 14, 2017, 12:48:13 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 14, 2017, 12:35:39 PM
I think that the cities have to come to some sort of agreement with the state before it can be turned over. Some do, and some refuse. For instance, the City of Newburgh allowed their streets to be taken off of state rolls since they wanted the right to say no trucks, and with a state highway, you can't do that. I don't think Evansville wants to maintain US 41's current route or that of highway 62 or 66 either. I'm still looking for a couple of roads to be dropped (east side IN 62) and shuffled over to the Lloyd Expressway.
It's more or less a joint decision between the state and the city/county as to whether or not to move routes. In St Joseph and Marshall counties, the state wanted to give the old alignment of US 31 back to the counties. Marshall said yes, St. Joseph said no, so IN 931 ends right at the county line.
931 up there has a bizarre routing as a result, it's almost an island, it has no state routes at either end, it only crosses SR 4. SR 62 and 66 should change hands at 69 and not 41.
IMO, 62 and 66 should never change hands. SR 62 should be Morgan Ave and then Diamond Ave west to New Harmony, and SR 66 should remain on the Lloyd to the Illinois state line.
I realize that originally, there was not a continuous route through Evansville like the Lloyd, but it still never made sense for them to criss-cross going west out of Evansville.
Quote from: Captain Jack on November 14, 2017, 03:10:24 PM
IMO, 62 and 66 should never change hands. SR 62 should be Morgan Ave and then Diamond Ave west to New Harmony, and SR 66 should remain on the Lloyd to the Illinois state line.
I realize that originally, there was not a continuous route through Evansville like the Lloyd, but it still never made sense for them to criss-cross going west out of Evansville.
that's actually a better idea, never thought of that one.
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 16, 2017, 07:38:40 AM
Quote from: Captain Jack on November 14, 2017, 03:10:24 PM
IMO, 62 and 66 should never change hands. SR 62 should be Morgan Ave and then Diamond Ave west to New Harmony, and SR 66 should remain on the Lloyd to the Illinois state line.
I realize that originally, there was not a continuous route through Evansville like the Lloyd, but it still never made sense for them to criss-cross going west out of Evansville.
that's actually a better idea, never thought of that one.
According to a 1958 Indiana map, the criss-cross arrangement of IN 62 & 66 had been in place back then -- and likely since the inception of the In state high network. US 460 came in from IL into Evansville over 66, followed a convoluted route through downtown, and left on 62, which was the same almost-all-the-way-across-the-state route it is today (which is probably why INDOT never elected to renumber any part of the alignment). According to the '58 map, US 460 was co-signed with its corresponding state highway (both 62 & 66) rather than simply replacing it, which left IN 62 intact.
US 460 was extended across Indiana and Illinois around 1949-50. Yes, since the inception of the Indiana routes, 62 went to Mt. Vernon and 66 went to New Harmony.
Something that always reminds me how strange this is, is the mileage sign as you leave Mt Vernon towards Evansville. It has mileage to Evansville and Boonville. Even as a road geek, it always seems strange to see. In my mind, it should be Evansville, and either Newburgh or Rockport. Outside of us geeks, I doubt you would find too many people who would tell you that Boonville and Mt. Vernon are on the same highway.
I think that this should much rather have been an even I-x69 instead, such as I-469, since it ends at interstates on both ends, but I believe it is unlikely this will change.
Nevertheless, I am very excited that there is a new interstate designation that will help facilitate traffic flow from I-69 in Indiana and Kentucky down into this part of the South.
Also, I absolutely love this I-69/I-169 interchange, and how I-69 itself just flows through with minimal interaction with the rest of the interchange (the part with the loop ramps), due to the fact that I-69, in the interchange, switches from the Pennyrile Parkway to the Western Kentucky Parkway. I always find it very interesting to see interchanges like this, that are configured this way because there is a very pronounced, special traffic movement in the interchange to force it to be designed that way - in this case, through Interstate 69 traffic. I am also assuming that this configuration of the interchange is very new (has only been around since the era of Extended I-69 has begun), and that before, this interchange between these parkways was just a normal, full cloverleaf interchange. So because of that, it is fascinating to see history, and how things can be changed by a large, significant decision. In this case, the extension of an interstate has shaped the way this interchange now looks. Now that I-69 passes through here, and switches from one parkway to the other, the interchange has a very new feel to it, and it has inevitably been changed to accommodate for this new interstate, and the traffic patterns that come with it. Also, there are some other examples of similar, very cool interchanges like this. Examples include the I-95/I-4 interchange, I-95/I-20 interchange, and to a less but still somewhat similar extent, the I-95/I-40 interchange (it is also interesting how all three of these examples are along Interstate 95!).
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31195723_1979425662129404_7696898268529164288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=b39667b0900dcf86953e647c31524c47&oe=5B996B0D)
https://www.facebook.com/KYTCDistrict2/posts/1979426708795966
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1979416152130355.1073741922.111931842212138&type=3
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2018, 11:12:42 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31195723_1979425662129404_7696898268529164288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=b39667b0900dcf86953e647c31524c47&oe=5B996B0D)
https://www.facebook.com/KYTCDistrict2/posts/1979426708795966
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1979416152130355.1073741922.111931842212138&type=3
For those of us who don't have Facebook accounts, what is the significance of these links?
From April 23: "Additional photos of the "Future I-169 Spur Corridor" sign unveiling event at Hopkinsville this morning."
And: "This is the first step in converting the Pennyrile Parkway to Interstate Spur status from I-24 extending northward through Christian County and southern Hopkins County to the I-69/WK Parkway/Pennyrile Parkway Interchange near Nortonville."
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 25, 2018, 07:09:45 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2018, 11:12:42 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31195723_1979425662129404_7696898268529164288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=b39667b0900dcf86953e647c31524c47&oe=5B996B0D)
https://www.facebook.com/KYTCDistrict2/posts/1979426708795966
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1979416152130355.1073741922.111931842212138&type=3
For those of us who don't have Facebook accounts, what is the significance of these links?
Those are public Facebook pages. You don't have to be a Facebook member to view them.
It didn't take long for somebody to put I-169 shields on Google maps. :no:
Quote from: hbelkins on April 25, 2018, 10:46:52 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 25, 2018, 07:09:45 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2018, 11:12:42 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31195723_1979425662129404_7696898268529164288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=b39667b0900dcf86953e647c31524c47&oe=5B996B0D)
https://www.facebook.com/KYTCDistrict2/posts/1979426708795966
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1979416152130355.1073741922.111931842212138&type=3
For those of us who don't have Facebook accounts, what is the significance of these links?
Those are public Facebook pages. You don't have to be a Facebook member to view them.
Link worked on my phone. Apparently Facebook is blocked at my work...
I dust-off this thread by mentionning this video of future I-169 posted on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjw5Yzaik7c