AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)  (Read 9046 times)

Captain Jack

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Last Login: November 16, 2017, 11:31:55 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #100 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?
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10816
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #101 on: October 31, 2017, 03:55:45 PM »

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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:12 AM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #102 on: October 31, 2017, 04:40:25 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. 
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2375
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 10:07:21 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #103 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
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:12 AM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #104 on: October 31, 2017, 09:27:54 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.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5370
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: Today at 03:31:42 AM
    • No Frills Picture Page
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2017, 07:42:28 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.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10816
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #106 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.
Logged

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 201
  • Road fan & weather geek - Harvey costliest storm..

  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 09:25:39 AM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #107 on: November 07, 2017, 02:06:08 PM »

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.
Logged
Up to date on I-69, I-14, I-42, I-87, and I-11 construction. I also want I-97 extended south! :)

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10816
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #108 on: November 07, 2017, 02:55:49 PM »

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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:12 AM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #109 on: November 07, 2017, 04:48:21 PM »

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!).
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10816
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #110 on: November 08, 2017, 06:12:04 PM »

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.
Logged

jnewkirk77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 176
  • Location: Owensboro, KY
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 09:53:12 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #111 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:12 AM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #112 on: November 13, 2017, 01:22:32 AM »

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).
Logged

jnewkirk77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 176
  • Location: Owensboro, KY
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 09:53:12 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #113 on: November 13, 2017, 07:40:39 AM »

The Audubon has been toll-free for 11 years now.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10816
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #114 on: November 13, 2017, 12:16:33 PM »

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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:12 AM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #115 on: November 13, 2017, 01:20:29 PM »

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.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10816
  • Celebrating another day that Hillary isn't prez.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:02:24 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #116 on: November 13, 2017, 10:06:44 PM »

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.
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 04:56:12 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #117 on: November 14, 2017, 11:21:33 AM »

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.
Logged

Captain Jack

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Last Login: November 16, 2017, 11:31:55 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #118 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.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2375
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 10:07:21 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #119 on: November 14, 2017, 12:23:23 PM »

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.
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 04:56:12 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #120 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.
Logged

cabiness42

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 947
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Munster, IN
  • Last Login: November 16, 2017, 03:37:58 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #121 on: November 14, 2017, 12:48:13 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.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2375
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 10:07:21 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #122 on: November 14, 2017, 12:52:39 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.
Logged

Captain Jack

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Last Login: November 16, 2017, 11:31:55 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #123 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.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2375
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 10:07:21 PM
Re: Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)
« Reply #124 on: November 16, 2017, 07:38:40 AM »

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.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.