This isn't quite a fictional thing because they are serious, but it is yet another I-67 proposal - at least the 4th one for that designation I am aware of.
U.S. 231 Coalition examining idea for connecting to I-69 (http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=227&ArticleID=62309)
So why not connect the Alabama-Florida proposal and the Indy-Grand Rapids proposal as some of the freeway is already there?
Too many interstates on I-465 - you'd have I-69, I-74 and the new I-67 common on the SE part of I-465.
Given the difficulties to completing I-69, it would be better to see how well I-69 and the Pennyrile/I-24 provides an alternate Indy-Nashville corridor.
I-63 would be a better number anyway; beside being within the grid, it would allow for a future extension up US 231 to I-65 at Lafayette for a better Indy bypass.
Well, everyone knows there is no limit at all to the number of routes on I-465, but it could go on the west leg. Anyway, the subject realistically would be I-63, as you suggest, from Nashville north to I-64 as there is not even money to complete the Jasper bypass (let alone to I-69).
I don't see how the US 231 freeway would be any different than the Natcher. From there down to Nashville it parallels I-65, and Natcher bends NW at the north end to connect to future I-69.
Are you referring to the Western Alabama Tollway idea?
The rest of it looks viable using the Kentucky Turnpikes again.
You could run 67 on the West side and 69 on the east and dump 465
It keeps grid order in Indy too
Quote from: 3467 on October 25, 2011, 10:40:25 PM
Are you referring to the Western Alabama Tollway idea?
The rest of it looks viable using the Kentucky Turnpikes again.
You could run 67 on the West side and 69 on the east and dump 465
It keeps grid order in Indy too
He might be talking about the Montgomery-Dothan-Panama City route, which has been on-again/off-again for a number of years now.
Quote from: DeaconG on October 25, 2011, 10:44:17 PM
Quote from: 3467 on October 25, 2011, 10:40:25 PM
Are you referring to the Western Alabama Tollway idea?
The rest of it looks viable using the Kentucky Turnpikes again.
You could run 67 on the West side and 69 on the east and dump 465
It keeps grid order in Indy too
He might be talking about the Montgomery-Dothan-Panama City route, which has been on-again/off-again for a number of years now.
There has also been talk for years for a western Alabama tollway to run between Mobile and Florence. Even last month there was talk (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5336.0) of a developer financing the construction of a tollway and an airport along this corridor. This is separate from the proposal of a freeway/tollway between Montgomery and Panama City via Dothan.
As for the I-67/US 231 proposal, it MAY work if it continues along US 231 to TN 840 at Lebanon, TN to funnel truck traffic around Nashville to I-24 towards Chattanooga and Atlanta.
Plus, TDOT hasn't really been interested in either extending the Alabama tollway north or upgrading US 231 that I know of.
Any Indianapolis-to-Nashville corridor that tried to use the Natcher Parkway would be well out of the way to be a viable alternative to I-65.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
Any Indianapolis-to-Nashville corridor that tried to use the Natcher Parkway would be well out of the way to be a viable alternative to I-65.
From Google:
Distance via I-65: 287 miles
Distance via Natcher and US 231: 306 miles
This is less than 20 miles longer, and this difference may be less (or more depending on where the proposal hits I-69) when the new-terrain I-69 is complete (Google uses US 50 to SR 37). I don't know if upgrading the new four-lane US 231 to a freeway would be necessary for traffic flow, but it certainly makes sense to connect its north end at Dale to I-69.
Quote from: NE2 on October 26, 2011, 12:27:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
Any Indianapolis-to-Nashville corridor that tried to use the Natcher Parkway would be well out of the way to be a viable alternative to I-65.
From Google:
Distance via I-65: 287 miles
Distance via Natcher and US 231: 306 miles
This is less than 20 miles longer, and this difference may be less (or more depending on where the proposal hits I-69) when the new-terrain I-69 is complete (Google uses US 50 to SR 37). I don't know if upgrading the new four-lane US 231 to a freeway would be necessary for traffic flow, but it certainly makes sense to connect its north end at Dale to I-69.
It also would avoid Louisville so it might be faster. The part north of I-64 is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, though.
An Interstate 67 Development Corp. has been formed in order to promote the proposed I-67:
http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=227&articleID=62930
They are currently attempting to raise approximately $200,000 to fund a traffic study and an economic impact study.
EDIT
This article suggests that a public-private partnership could be used to pay for the road:
http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=227&articleID=63029
Quote
... Hank Menke, president of OFS Brands in Huntingburg and a member of a newly formed group called Interstate 67 Development Corp. .... said the traffic count would be a more accurate reflection than INDOT's count, which focused only on U.S. 231 near Jasper. Menke believes a new count will show INDOT the need for an improved road in this area. If that can be done, INDOT could utilize a public-private partnership, called a P3, package to fund the road.
"If the money's not available for 231, then how can money be available for I-67?" Council President Greg Kendall asked.
"It's a different pot of money," Dubois County Engineer Jason Heile explained. Original funding for U.S. 231 upgrades was in the Major Moves package. But that money has gone to other projects, including I-69 and roads in the northern part of the state. Through the P3 package, the state can either obtain federal loans or federal bonds for the road or make the road a toll road to generate funding ...
I like especially in Indiana. Anything to drive Tom Taranski and his ilk crazy. I would love to see his face when he reads about this future Interstate. Oh it would be soooooooooo juicy.
I-67 makes the local news. Here's a link to a video report about Daviess County, KY and Dubois County, IN moving forward with a $200,000 study about the proposed I-67:
http://www.14news.com/story/16508027/daviess-and-dubois-county-move-forward-with-i-67-road-study
Quote
If built, I-67 would be a continuous four-lane interstate running from Washington, Indiana, through Owensboro, continuing to Bowling Green by connecting with I-65.
Hmm, so let's see....we will have I-65, I-66, I-69, and now I-67 all within close proximity to each other if all of them get built and designated. Anyone else think this could be confusing?
I-64 is not too far from there either, but it is difficult to see how I-66 could (or should) get built. I-66 is not the right number for the proposed highway, anyway. The I-67 designation is also unlikely, but who knows.
To the question, I don't think it would be that confusing. Cincinnati area has three I-7x interstates with I-70 not too far away. Boston area has has three I-9x interstates with I-91 close by. I haven't heard that confusion is an issue in those places.
Quote from: mukade on January 13, 2012, 08:02:47 AM
I-64 is not too far from there either, but it is difficult to see how I-66 could (or should) get built. I-66 is not the right number for the proposed highway, anyway. The I-67 designation is also unlikely, but who knows.
To the question, I don't think it would be that confusing. Cincinnati area has three I-7x interstates with I-70 not too far away. Boston area has has three I-9x interstates with I-91 close by. I haven't heard that confusion is an issue in those places.
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA has three I-8x interstates with I-83, I-87 and I-88 not too far from that area (within about a 150-mile radius).
That I-67 designation is really a favorite number among Interstate proposals; this is my first time seeing the newest one. All you'd have to do is connect Montgomery to Indianapolis, and you'd have a continuous route from Michigan to Florida! (which we already have in I-75)
^^^
What's the third one in WB/Scranton? (I know there's I-81 and I-84 plus I-380 and I-476)
Are you talking about I-80? IMO, that's not close enough to Wilkes-Barre to be part of the metro area.
Though, it still is close enough to make your point.
Quote from: mightyace on January 17, 2012, 03:55:33 AM
^^^
What's the third one in WB/Scranton? (I know there's I-81 and I-84 plus I-380 and I-476)
Are you talking about I-80? IMO, that's not close enough to Wilkes-Barre to be part of the metro area.
Though, it still is close enough to make your point.
And there's two more as well not much further than I-80, certainly within 150 miles. I-86 and I-87, they are both in New York.
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
And there's two more as well not much further than I-80, certainly within 150 miles. I-86 and I-87, they are both in New York.
If you're gonna mention I-86, I figure you may as well add I-88 too. (Unless you meant I-88 instead of I-87, which isn't really all THAT close....)
The latest sales pitch for I-67 (March 21 article) (http://wkyufm.org/post/daviess-county-leader-positive-about-future-possible-i-67) is that it would be the "cheapest interstate that would ever be built in the United States":
Quote
Al Mattingly and other political and business leaders from the region this week went to Washington DC to lobby lawmakers for funding for the proposed I-67, a four-lane interstate running from Washington, Indiana through Owensboro and continuing to Bowling Green, where it would connect with I-65.
"We're calling it the cheapest interstate that would ever be built in the United States," Mattingly told WKU Public Radio. "In effect, we have the Natcher, which is four lanes and almost interstate standard. And we have the bypass extension being built now and that is also nearly up to interstate standards."
Current plans call for the new I-67 to use the four-lane US 231, the William Natcher Bridge over the Ohio River at Maceo, and the William Natcher Parkway through Daviess, Ohio, Butler, and Warren counties, where it would link up with I-65.
Supporters say the new interstate would cost at least 500-million-dollars. A study looking at the proposed route of the highway is scheduled for release at the end of November.
Washington, Indiana is considered the birthplace of I-69. I find it interesting that Washington has positioned itself to be a terminus for the proposed I-67, too.
Here's another TV video report (http://www.wthitv.com/dpp/news/local/southern_indiana/i-67-proposal) about the proposed I-67. The video includes some footage of I-69 construction around Washington.
Quote
"I know they are in the process of doing a study to really identify the traffic flow, traffic patterns, the economic impact, so yeah, it's at its beginning," said Ron Arnold with the Daviess County Economic Development Corporation .... "It would become a hub where you have 2 interstates meeting and with U.S. 50 being the major east-west route crossing 69 its very positive for Daviess County," said Arnold .... Indiana Department of Transportation officials say they are aware of the proposal but have no comment until a formal request is made for construction.
US 231 from I64 to the KY state line is pretty much interstate quality, so Indiana is almost halfway finished with their portion of Interstate 67.
Bowling Green having I-65, I-66 and I-67. And I-67 on a useless concurrency as it goes along I-66 for some distance to meet I-65.
Quote from: english si on May 10, 2012, 04:36:16 PM
Bowling Green having I-65, I-66 and I-67. And I-67 on a useless concurrency as it goes along I-66 for some distance to meet I-65.
I-67 should end at the Bluegrass Parkway / I-66.
Post Merge: May 11, 2012, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: sr641 on May 10, 2012, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: english si on May 10, 2012, 04:36:16 PM
Bowling Green having I-65, I-66 and I-67. And I-67 on a useless concurrency as it goes along I-66 for some distance to meet I-65.
I-67 should end at the Bluegrass Parkway / I-66.
I meant the Wendel H. Ford Parkway sorry. It turns into the Bluegrass after I65 (east of it).
It turns into the Martha Layne Collins Bluegrass Parkway!! All but the Audobon Pky is named after a Politician. (gag me!!).
As far as I-66 and I-67 is concerned, don't hold your breath. They will never be built or designated. Be happy that I-69 is inching along.
There's not going to be an I-67 in Kentucky. Don't know where people are getting this stuff. Pulling it out of their rear ends is the most likely source.
Is another interstate really needed?
^you are the one bumping the topic i merely asked a question.
:banghead:
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 08, 2012, 04:12:49 PM
^you are the one bumping the topic i mearly asked a question.
mearly, mearly, mearly, mearly, life is but a dream...
Quote from: hbelkins on May 10, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
There's not going to be an I-67 in Kentucky. Don't know where people are getting this stuff. Pulling it out of their rear ends is the most likely source.
I know it's been a while since you said this, H.B., but I got a chuckle out of it. The mayor of Owensboro (Ron Payne) and Daviess Co. Judge-Exec (Al Mattingly) are pretty high on this "I-67" thing. Personally, I don't see it happening; my feeling is that 231's a fine connection to I-64, and the Audubon Pkwy. will do fine as an I-69 connector.
Plus, US 60 is not a bad drive east to the Fort Knox area. Much of it is two lanes but I always found it to be a fairly fast and very pleasant drive.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2012, 09:51:31 AM
Plus, US 60 is not a bad drive east to the Fort Knox area. Much of it is two lanes but I always found it to be a fairly fast and very pleasant drive.
I like going that way myself. My kids seem to enjoy it as much as I do, which is a plus. ;-)
Quote
Interstate 67 would improve road safety and boost the economy of the counties it runs through as well as southern Indiana and western Kentucky, according to a recently completed study of the proposed interstate...
Study indicates I-67 needed, critical to Jasper region (http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=66&ArticleID=66992) (Jasper Herald)
Is there a reason this has to be extended to Washington, is traffic honestly that bad from Washington to Jasper? The US 231 bypass of Jasper and Huntingburg is needed I feel, but wouldn't it make a little more sense to at least four-lane US 231 north to Crane instead of a new interstate to Washington? Just rambling off here...
The AP is working on some sort of story about I-67 in Kentucky. Here's what the reporter was told about the status of I-67 in Kentucky:
o KYTC is not engaged in any I-67 feasibility work.
o Our priority in that region is I-69 and will be for some time.
o 55 miles of I-69 already sport the red, white and blue interstate shield signs.
o Just this past Friday, we opened bids for the project to rebuild the Dawson Springs interchange to interstate standards. (Have not yet awarded contract.)
o KYTC understands the concept and the desire in the region for an enhanced connection between I-64 in southern Indiana and I-65 at Bowling Green.
o There is no identified I-67 corridor. Interstate corridors must be approved by FHWA and AASHTO, which has not happened.
o It would require more than just upgrading the Natcher Parkway. The Natcher Bridge, a fairly new structure, does not meet interstate standards, nor does the Owensboro Bypass, which is currently under construction.
o At best, an I-67 corridor is on a far horizon.
I think everyone realizes this is not a serious proposal for a new designation anytime soon, but it is noteworthy for two reasons. The powers are gathering grassroot support all along the way and they are more or less following the strtategy that got the I-69 designation through seven states. That took a while, but obviously proved successful.
Personally, I think a road like US 231 from I-64 to I-65 is by and large sufficient as it is, but I would like to see the route "promoted". This is an example of why a secondary level of Interstate highway designation should be created for situations like this.
On the subject of the I-67 proposal, I also don't see why it would ever go to Washington, IN. It would be a tough sell to improve US 231 north of Jasper, but if money was no object, it should go north or northeast from Jasper.
Quote from: mukade on October 26, 2012, 09:18:28 PM
I think everyone realizes this is not a serious proposal for a new designation anytime soon, but it is noteworthy for two reasons. The powers are gathering grassroot support all along the way and they are more or less following the strtategy that got the I-69 designation through seven states. That took a while, but obviously proved successful.
Personally, I think a road like US 231 from I-64 to I-65 is by and large sufficient as it is, but I would like to see the route "promoted". This is an example of why a secondary level of Interstate highway designation should be created for situations like this.
On the subject of the I-67 proposal, I also don't see why it would ever go to Washington, IN. It would be a tough sell to improve US 231 north of Jasper, but if money was no object, it should go north or northeast from Jasper.
I agree with promoting 231 ... it can stand on its own merits. If I-67 is not to be a priority, what about these?
* Reassign U.S. 60 from its current route between Henderson and Owensboro to KY 425 and the Audubon Parkway. (The Audubon name could be retained if desired.)
* Reassign U.S. 231 to the Natcher Parkway. It ties in to 231 at both ends anyway ... why not?
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 27, 2012, 01:25:48 PM
I agree with promoting 231 ... it can stand on its own merits. If I-67 is not to be a priority, what about these?
* Reassign U.S. 60 from its current route between Henderson and Owensboro to KY 425 and the Audubon Parkway. (The Audubon name could be retained if desired.)
* Reassign U.S. 231 to the Natcher Parkway. It ties in to 231 at both ends anyway ... why not?
For that matter, why not transfer US 62 onto the Western Kentucky and Bluegrass Parkways?
Once you go freeway you'll never go back.
Quote from: xonhulu on October 27, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 27, 2012, 01:25:48 PM
I agree with promoting 231 ... it can stand on its own merits. If I-67 is not to be a priority, what about these?
* Reassign U.S. 60 from its current route between Henderson and Owensboro to KY 425 and the Audubon Parkway. (The Audubon name could be retained if desired.)
* Reassign U.S. 231 to the Natcher Parkway. It ties in to 231 at both ends anyway ... why not?
For that matter, why not transfer US 62 onto the Western Kentucky and Bluegrass Parkways?
Works for me.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 28, 2012, 12:41:53 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on October 27, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 27, 2012, 01:25:48 PM
I agree with promoting 231 ... it can stand on its own merits. If I-67 is not to be a priority, what about these?
* Reassign U.S. 60 from its current route between Henderson and Owensboro to KY 425 and the Audubon Parkway. (The Audubon name could be retained if desired.)
* Reassign U.S. 231 to the Natcher Parkway. It ties in to 231 at both ends anyway ... why not?
For that matter, why not transfer US 62 onto the Western Kentucky and Bluegrass Parkways?
Works for me.
I like US 62. Throughout KY, it's a quiet road that's usually not the fastest way from point A to point B, even among surface roads. But that's not what US routes are for. If KY has a spare low number kicking around, I'd reroute 62 and apply the number to the current road. Of course, there's no comprehensive website that actually lists which numbers are available. (Wikipedia is already wrong at KY 12, but I expect no better from them.)
OSM data shows that 50 is the only available two-digit number. (You may be able to extract the information from http://www.overpass-api.de/api/xapi?*[network=US:KY] with the <tag k="ref" v="627"/> lines. I opened a variant of that URL in JOSM, an OSM editor.)
I'd prefer to see low numbers assigned to the parkways, keeping the U.S. Routes where they are. KY 66 could be reassigned to the southern tier route ("future I-66") and over to Henderson or KY 80 could be rerouted there, though then Bowling Green to Henderson needs a number), with KY 50 on the central route west of Lexington, and KY 114 extended west over the Mountain Parkway. That leaves only the south part of the Pennyrile, an obvious candidate for an I-x69.
Quote from: NE2 on October 28, 2012, 03:29:38 AM
I'd prefer to see low numbers assigned to the parkways, keeping the U.S. Routes where they are. KY 66 could be reassigned to the southern tier route ("future I-66") and over to Henderson or KY 80 could be rerouted there, though then Bowling Green to Henderson needs a number), with KY 50 on the central route west of Lexington, and KY 114 extended west over the Mountain Parkway. That leaves only the south part of the Pennyrile, an obvious candidate for an I-x69.
I'd prefer to see numbers assigned in any sort of order whatsoever. How about 1-digit roads for parkways only, 2-digit routes for major roads in a grid system, then 3 and 4 digit roads filling in the spaces in the grid?
Quote from: Steve on October 28, 2012, 07:20:37 AM
I'd prefer to see numbers assigned in any sort of order whatsoever. How about 1-digit roads for parkways only, 2-digit routes for major roads in a grid system, then 3 and 4 digit roads filling in the spaces in the grid?
Kentucky started out in the 1920s with a grid of one- and two-digit routes, and most of those remain. The only one-digit number that's been reassigned is 4 (now US 460 east of KY 80); the others are still in their original locations on the east side of the state.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Maps/1939KYF.pdf
Quote from: Steve on October 28, 2012, 07:20:37 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 28, 2012, 03:29:38 AM
I'd prefer to see low numbers assigned to the parkways, keeping the U.S. Routes where they are. KY 66 could be reassigned to the southern tier route ("future I-66") and over to Henderson or KY 80 could be rerouted there, though then Bowling Green to Henderson needs a number), with KY 50 on the central route west of Lexington, and KY 114 extended west over the Mountain Parkway. That leaves only the south part of the Pennyrile, an obvious candidate for an I-x69.
I'd prefer to see numbers assigned in any sort of order whatsoever. How about 1-digit roads for parkways only, 2-digit routes for major roads in a grid system, then 3 and 4 digit roads filling in the spaces in the grid?
Or route 67 for the Natcher and route 50 for the Bluegrass/Western Kentucky to have consistent numbering with a potential future Interstate designations?
Actually, KY 3 and US 23 were basically flip-flopped between Louisa and Catlettsburg, but that's not as dramatic a change as was relocating KY 4 from Pike County to Lexington.
Somewhere on KYTC's site there is a listing of truck weights that can be manipulated to produce a current listing of route numbers. I used to know where that was, but they've changed up a bunch of things as they've converted their site to content management via SharePoint. Digging around on the Maps or Planning pages might yield it.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2012, 03:21:54 PM
Somewhere on KYTC's site there is a listing of truck weights that can be manipulated to produce a current listing of route numbers. I used to know where that was, but they've changed up a bunch of things as they've converted their site to content management via SharePoint. Digging around on the Maps or Planning pages might yield it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atransportation.ky.gov+3630+3608+3571
Some idiot alphabetized the list though, so it goes KY 1 KY 10 KY 100 KY 1000 KY 1001...
Incidentally, these two numbers are duplicated:
http://apps.transportation.ky.gov/HIS_Reports/TruckWeightLimitsReport.aspx?sq=sub&prefix=KY&route=2390&suffix=
http://apps.transportation.ky.gov/HIS_Reports/TruckWeightLimitsReport.aspx?sq=sub&prefix=KY&route=3215&suffix=
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Owensboro-officials-tout-interstate-study-179462351.html
Funny that they talk about building the route without tolls vs. with tolls, since it would follow one of Kentucky's former toll roads.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2012, 10:17:33 AM
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Owensboro-officials-tout-interstate-study-179462351.html
Funny that they talk about building the route without tolls vs. with tolls, since it would follow one of Kentucky's former toll roads.
It would have to be tolled, wouldn't it? I mean, Indiana says they don't have the money to finish I-69 from Bloomington to Indy, so where would the money to fill the gaps and build I-67 come from? And I'm sure there's no money in Frankfort for Kentucky to upgrade 60/231 NE of Owensboro and the Natcher Parkway to Interstate standards.
Just convince AASHTO to move the 231 designation to the Natcher in KY and continue upgrading 231 in IN as funds become available. It makes a helluva lot more sense, at least to me ... and once approved, Kentucky's part could be done in days, not years.
Quote
The construction of an Interstate 67 corridor, which would connect Dubois County to Indianapolis and Owensboro, could be fast-tracked if the project is ranked as a priority by a government-appointed commission at the end of the year...
Initiative has I-67 on short list of critical roads (http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=173&ArticleID=69564) (Indiana Economic Digest)
Would US 31 be better suited to I-67 anyway?
Two things to add on this subject, first of all, won't a new interchange have to be built on I-69 then, after all the construction we've already done (minus the repaving being done and small additions such as lighting.) Second then, if you're going from Owensboro to Indianapolis, how does going to Washington make it quicker, won't heading north toward Loogootee and Crane provide a straighter route?
Quote from: mrose on April 23, 2013, 07:32:19 PM
Would US 31 be better suited to I-67 anyway?
Both US 231 south and US 31 north could be I-67. Part of current SR 37 would be I-67 and I-69.
Somehow, I think I-67 is a longshot.
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 23, 2013, 07:38:46 PM
Two things to add on this subject, first of all, won't a new interchange have to be built on I-69 then, after all the construction we've already done (minus the repaving being done and small additions such as lighting.) Second then, if you're going from Owensboro to Indianapolis, how does going to Washington make it quicker, won't heading north toward Loogootee and Crane provide a straighter route?
I agree, the Washington routing makes no sense.
In all honesty, this does not need to be a freeway - US 231 south of I-64 is a very nice highway. Jasper and Huntingburg do need a good bypass, though.
I wouldn't build it to full freeway standards but a upgradeable expressway for the future.
Quote from: ShawnP on April 23, 2013, 08:39:01 PM
I wouldn't build it to full freeway standards but a upgradeable expressway for the future.
After all the other road projects in Indiana get funded, sure.
You don't need a freeway that'll service 20,000 people total who can just drive 5-10 miles to I-64 or I-69.
Still getting some press.....
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/sep/11/daviess-co-leaders-drum-interest-i-67-plan/
The need for this road is suspect at best in Indiana.
I'm reminded of the Lord of the Rings with Daviess County here.
"What about an interstate?"
"You already have one."
"We have one yes. What about a second interstate?"
Quote from: tdindy88 on September 13, 2013, 02:36:25 PM
I'm reminded of the Lord of the Rings with Daviess County here.
"What about an interstate?"
"You already have one."
"We have one yes. What about a second interstate?"
Haha great line. But it is true, isn't 69 good enough? Would a 4 lane divided highway style US 231 also be good enough?
I find the last few comments amusing, but it should be noted the origin of I-67 was for Jasper to revive a killed Major Moves study to four lane US231 through Dubois Co and around Jasper. Washington is simply the shortest (and presumably cheapest) closure to I-69.
Daviess County (Indiana) only joined later to feed their quest for power.
That being said, if "I-67" were built, the local terrain (forest and White River) and new terrain build distance between Haysville and I-69 might make Washington sensible despite the extra distance added to the total trip.
But then again, how many drivers would look at the map and think US 231 was a shortcut worth trying?
As a fictional highway, finishing US231 as an interstate quality road between Crane and Dale would make a reasonable alternative for Indy to Nashville. (Particularly with no I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.)
Quote from: Grzrd on April 29, 2014, 07:52:00 PM
This article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_2e51256d-73fc-59a9-b3fb-a671d047ecd3.html) ....
Owensboro Mayor Payne has also been speaking with the folks in Indiana:
Quote
Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne has been leading the charge to get an interstate through Owensboro or to get the city connected to an interstate via a four-lane highway.
An Indiana Department of Transportation official met Friday with Payne and Kentucky Sen. Joe Bowen and confirmed Monday that he anticipates Indiana will take a look at a four-lane connector linking Owensboro to I-69 in southern Indiana.
He said Indiana sees a lot of value in a connection from I-69 through the Jasper-Huntingburg area to Owensboro and on to I-65 in Nashville and points south.
Payne said Tuesday that he's really pleased to hear a date for the Palmer study's release and he's anxious to see what it says.
"But that doesn't mean we've completely stopped our efforts here in Owensboro," the mayor said. "We're going to continue working to get Owensboro on the interstate system."
Payne said after talking to the INDOT official, he's excited about "two good options" for getting that done -- the Natcher Parkway becoming a connector to I-65 or something similar to the north, connecting to I-69.
"If the four-lane connector becomes one of Indiana's top five projects, then this thing is going to be built in my lifetime," Payne said. "A four-lane road out of Owensboro all the way to Indianapolis would be so good for economic development. We have so many exciting things happening here, but one thing we lack is connectivity. And I can't wait to see what the Palmer study says."
(above quote from KYTC to Study Interstate Upgrades For Audubon and Natcher Parkways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4040.msg295779#msg295779) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on May 31, 2014, 11:59:41 PM
This article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_47a904f2-6a83-5e15-bab8-20d2ae11aa63.html?_dc=896191919455.3047)
Quote
The Palmer study concluded that the cost to create an I-67 corridor out of sections of U.S. 60 and U.S. 231 in and near Owensboro – from the U.S. 60 bypass to the Indiana state line – will cost $177 million, not including property purchase or utility relocation ....
One finding in the report that Payne and Amy Jackson, president of the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce, found especially encouraging was a paragraph stating that the Natcher Bridge meets all the minimum standards for interstate highway bridges.
"That is phenomenal news," Payne said. "Our bridge is interstate compliant, with no exceptions." ....
The I-67 overview summary in the Palmer report concluded the following: "Based on the findings of this high-level overview for the sections of U.S. 60 and U.S. 231, a majority of the corridor meets the Federal Highway Administration's 13 design features that have been identified as being important to the operational and safety performance of a highway."
The single highest cost item for the I-67 corridor is $60 million to overhaul the intersection of the Natcher Parkway and the former U.S. 60 bypass, followed by $55 million to control access to U.S. 60 and U.S. 231 using frontage roads.
(above quote from KYTC to Study Interstate Upgrades For Audubon and Natcher Parkways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4040.msg303180#msg303180) thread)
As also previously mentioned in the above post, KYTC has posted the I-67 report:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/Project-Details.aspx?Project=I-67%20Corridor%20Overview
This article (behind $1.00 pay wall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that it would cost approximately $600 million for the Indiana section of I-67:
Quote
... Kevin McClearn, chief district engineer for District 2 of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.
McClearn was in Owensboro on Monday, presenting the findings of a new report that looked at what it would take to elevate the Audubon and Natcher parkways and sections of U.S. 60 and U.S. 231 and the William Natcher Bridge in Owensboro to federal interstate standards ....
Of the several cost figures tossed out Monday, one was that it will cost $243 million to upgrade the Natcher Parkway from Bowling Green to the Natcher Bridge. Then Indiana would have to spend up to $600 million to carry an interstate-compliant road from the Natcher Bridge to Washington, Indiana, where it would connect to I-69. That route amounts to the I-67 that local leaders have also called for.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2014, 10:58:19 PM
This article (behind $1.00 pay wall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that it would cost approximately $600 million for the Indiana section of I-67:
Quote
... Kevin McClearn, chief district engineer for District 2 of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.
McClearn was in Owensboro on Monday, presenting the findings of a new report that looked at what it would take to elevate the Audubon and Natcher parkways and sections of U.S. 60 and U.S. 231 and the William Natcher Bridge in Owensboro to federal interstate standards ....
Of the several cost figures tossed out Monday, one was that it will cost $243 million to upgrade the Natcher Parkway from Bowling Green to the Natcher Bridge. Then Indiana would have to spend up to $600 million to carry an interstate-compliant road from the Natcher Bridge to Washington, Indiana, where it would connect to I-69. That route amounts to the I-67 that local leaders have also called for.
Thanks for the citations. Has there been any traction for I-67 in Indiana? I know Owensboro has expressed interest in getting on I-69 (and may have to settle with being on a spur of I-69 or a spur of I-66), but has Owensboro been trying for I-67 as a second best alternative if they can't get on I-69? Has there been a cost estimate provided just to get I-67 constructed from the Ohio River bridge up to I-64?
Quote from: andy3175 on June 04, 2014, 01:06:34 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2014, 10:58:19 PM
This article (behind $1.00 pay wall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that it would cost approximately $600 million for the Indiana section of I-67:
Quote
... Kevin McClearn, chief district engineer for District 2 of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.
McClearn was in Owensboro on Monday, presenting the findings of a new report that looked at what it would take to elevate the Audubon and Natcher parkways and sections of U.S. 60 and U.S. 231 and the William Natcher Bridge in Owensboro to federal interstate standards ....
Of the several cost figures tossed out Monday, one was that it will cost $243 million to upgrade the Natcher Parkway from Bowling Green to the Natcher Bridge. Then Indiana would have to spend up to $600 million to carry an interstate-compliant road from the Natcher Bridge to Washington, Indiana, where it would connect to I-69. That route amounts to the I-67 that local leaders have also called for.
Thanks for the citations. Has there been any traction for I-67 in Indiana? I know Owensboro has expressed interest in getting on I-69 (and may have to settle with being on a spur of I-69 or a spur of I-66), but has Owensboro been trying for I-67 as a second best alternative if they can't get on I-69? Has there been a cost estimate provided just to get I-67 constructed from the Ohio River bridge up to I-64?
Only in Mayor Payne's mind. Fortunately for the rest of us with any damned sense around here, Indiana's up to its ears with I-69 and other projects. It has some support in Jasper and Washington (IN), but the general consensus is that if "I-67" is ever built, it'll have to wait until other more pressing projects get done.
I don't think Indiana is even thinking cost estimates at this point. They're still too busy laughing at Payne's notion of routing I-69 through here - which the esteemed Messenger-Inquirer keeps insisting (yes, even today in an editorial behind that wall) is a fabulous idea but everyone else sees as pure foolishness.
Jasper had a draft environmental impact for a four lane US231 bypass around the east side up to the county line/river (Haysville) until the money got swallowed up by I-69. Some think an I-67 could revive the plans. They should go back to arguing the local merit instead of trying to tie it to this fiasco.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 01, 2014, 11:06:17 AM
KYTC has posted the I-67 report:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/Project-Details.aspx?Project=I-67%20Corridor%20Overview
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2014, 10:58:19 PM
This article (behind $1.00 pay wall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that it would cost approximately $600 million for the Indiana section of I-67:
Quote
Indiana would have to spend up to $600 million to carry an interstate-compliant road from the Natcher Bridge to Washington, Indiana, where it would connect to I-69.
Quote from: andy3175 on June 04, 2014, 01:06:34 AM
Has there been any traction for I-67 in Indiana? I know Owensboro has expressed interest in getting on I-69 (and may have to settle with being on a spur of I-69 or a spur of I-66), but has Owensboro been trying for I-67 as a second best alternative if they can't get on I-69?
Quote from: thefro on July 10, 2014, 08:41:54 AM
A report by a Blue Ribbon Panel commissioned by Governor Pence makes recommendations about future transportation priorities in Indiana (http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Report_July_9_2014.pdf)
Firstly, the report lists as the highest-priority to finish existing projects ...
2) I-69 Extension from Evansville to Indianapolis ....
For future road projects, there are 3 tiers
Tier 1 Projects:
3) I-69 Ohio River Bridge ....
Tier 2 Projects:
3) Mid-States Corridor (I-67 upgrade of US 231 and connector to I-69 near Petersburg) ....
Tier 3 Projects ....
(bottom quote from Indiana Notes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7946.msg311410#msg311410) thread)
thefro's summary from the Blue Ribbon Panel's report indicates that, on the Indiana side of the Ohio River, I-67 is in the "second four" of future project priorities and that both completion of the I-69 Extension and the I-69 Ohio River Bridge are higher priorities than I-67.
I still don't expect to see 67 built in my lifetime, and you shouldn't either.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on July 11, 2014, 03:05:37 PM
I still don't expect to see 67 built in my lifetime, and you shouldn't either.
I don't expect to see this segment of I-67, but I do expect to see it from Indy to Mackinaw City
I wonder why local businesses are pushing this project so much as opposed to an actual US 231 bypass around Jasper/Huntingburg? Perhaps they're worried a bypass will negatively affect business.
Quote from: SW Indiana on July 12, 2014, 08:01:10 PM
I wonder why local businesses are pushing this project so much as opposed to an actual US 231 bypass around Jasper/Huntingburg? Perhaps they're worried a bypass will negatively affect business.
because people think interstate=more money/business/jobs
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on June 10, 2014, 12:41:19 AM
No one here that I know of takes the Messenger-Inquirer seriously.
(above quote from I-69 Ohio River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg304956#msg304956) thread)
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on July 11, 2014, 03:05:37 PM
I still don't expect to see 67 built in my lifetime
This July 14
Messenger-Inquirer article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/mid-state-connector-could-be-a-toll-road/article_c3dcbd16-0eee-578c-991d-34e9267643b6.html?success=2) reports that promoters of the project have stopped referring to it as "I-67" in favor of "Mid-State Corridor ("M-SC")" and that the M-SC should be started in the next five to ten years, probably as a toll road:
Quote
... the Mid-State Corridor -- formerly called I-67 -- from Pike County, Indiana, to the Natcher Bridge east of Owensboro should be started in the next five to 10 years.
"I feel really good about it," Hank Menke, chairman of the I-67 Development Corp., and a member of the blue ribbon panel, said Monday. "This is where we wanted to be. I'm very excited." ....
The federal Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by an 18.3 cents per gallon tax on gas and a 24.4 cents per gallon tax on diesel fuel, is running out of money because of a combination of more fuel-efficient vehicles and people driving less.
And that might mean that the Mid-State Corridor, which is expected to cost Indiana $444 million -- and Kentucky $177 million for work on this side -- would have to be built as a toll road, Menke said.
"We may have to use tolls," he said. "That's how we used to build highways in this country. If it takes tolls, so be it. We can't rely on the federal government for anything today."
Jackson said the Owensboro chamber hasn't taken a survey of its members on the issue of tolls on the proposed Indiana four-lane.
"We'd have to weigh the costs and the benefits," she said. "But the federal highway fund is dried up, so we have to be creative."
The blue ribbon panel recommended that Indiana build 29.6 miles of new four-lane road south from Petersburg in northern Pike County to connect with the existing four lanes of U.S. 231 near Dale, Indiana.
That new 25.8-mile four-lane section of U.S. 231 would have to be upgraded to the Natcher Bridge ....
The promoters of the project, including Owensboro and Daviess County officials, dropped the I-67 name because only federal officials can create an interstate highway.
But Menke said the group still wants to see I-67.
"Our goal is to get an interstate designation once we start building the highway," he said. "That interstate symbol is very important to communities." ....
"I feel really good about it," Menke said. "The stars are really aligning for this project. It's been submitted to the governor. Now, it's up to him to run with it."
The Mid-State Corridor should pick up a lot of traffic because it will allow people heading south on I-65 to detour slightly and bypass congestion in both Indianapolis and Louisville, Menke said.
He said, "I want to thank everybody in Owensboro for their support on this project. There's been a lot of work on both sides of the river."
Quote from: Grzrd on June 03, 2014, 10:58:19 PM
This article (behind $1.00 pay wall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that it would cost approximately $600 million for the Indiana section of I-67:
Quote
Indiana would have to spend up to $600 million to carry an interstate-compliant road from the Natcher Bridge to Washington, Indiana, where it would connect to I-69. That route amounts to the I-67 that local leaders have also called for.
The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million, not $600 million:
Quote
And that might mean that the Mid-State Corridor, which is expected to cost Indiana $444 million -- and Kentucky $177 million for work on this side -- would have to be built as a toll road, Menke said.
It is worth noting that the M-I also refers to the project as the "Mid-State
Connector" in both the headline and certain places in the article. Regardless, I have to agree that, by whatever name, it probably will not be built during my lifetime.
I still fail to see why this is needed, either as a free road or a toll road.
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 14, 2014, 03:55:25 PM
I still fail to see why this is needed, either as a free road or a toll road.
You fail to see why it's needed because it isn't needed.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 14, 2014, 03:47:37 PM
The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million, not $600 million:
By way of explanation, but not necessarily endorsement;
The new route is significantly different;
Travelling west of Jasper instead of east is likely a substantial savings;
Connecting to Petersburg saves another bridge over the East Fork White River;
Coal mining in south Daviess (Indiana) County would create subsidence issues and is avoided by the new route.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 14, 2014, 06:19:37 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 14, 2014, 03:55:25 PM
I still fail to see why this is needed, either as a free road or a toll road.
You fail to see why it's needed because it isn't needed.
Interstate... Not needed. but an upgrade tothe US231 corridor north of I-64 is needed to remove traffic from the congested city streets. This could be done with 2 or 4 lane bypasses but the coties of Loogootee and Jasper still need to be served by US-231...
The likelihood that I-67 will happen south of Indianapolis is slim to none (except maybe to connect Dothan and Panama City to the interstate system, but even that is questionable.)
4 lane divided highway is good enough
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 15, 2014, 04:02:50 PM
4 lane divided highway is good enough
As one who uses this part of US231 extensively, I agree.
But I've heard the current plan is to upgrade to "super 2" in/around 2017.
A super 2 would be fine for a few yrs
At one point, a few years ago, INDOT had plans to upgrade US 231 between Haysville and Loogootee to a Super 2, but that got cut back to just realigning some intersections/cutting hills down (Truelove Church Road, 650 S and Webb, etc,) but even that was eliminated.
It's frustrating to see this small part of the state continuously getting the shaft on needed projects such as but not limited to: US 231 bypass around Jasper/Huntingburg, US 50 upgrade to 4 lanes from Washington to Loogootee, the above mentioned project, etc....
Quote from: Grzrd on July 14, 2014, 03:47:37 PM
This July 14 Messenger-Inquirer article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/mid-state-connector-could-be-a-toll-road/article_c3dcbd16-0eee-578c-991d-34e9267643b6.html?success=2) reports that promoters of the project have stopped referring to it as "I-67" in favor of "Mid-State Corridor ("M-SC")" and that the M-SC should be started in the next five to ten years ... :
Quote
... the Mid-State Corridor -- formerly called I-67 -- from Pike County, Indiana, to the Natcher Bridge east of Owensboro should be started in the next five to 10 years ....
The promoters of the project, including Owensboro and Daviess County officials, dropped the I-67 name because only federal officials can create an interstate highway.
But Menke said the group still wants to see I-67.
"Our goal is to get an interstate designation once we start building the highway[/b]," he said. "That interstate symbol is very important to communities." ....
The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million
This Feb. 20 article (http://www.14news.com/story/28163042/mid-state-corridor-closer-to-reality) reports that the Mid-State Corridor/ Interstate 67 ("I-67") has slowly moved up the ladder to become a Tier 2 project, a development which I-67 promoters contend means that it is now closer to reality:
Quote
The group trying to get an interstate connecting Dubois County to Indianapolis has learned it is closer to a reality.
INDOT told the I-67 corporation the interstate is a Tier 2 project.
They've also learned the US-231 bridge has met interstate standards. That's the bridge they would like to use to connect to Kentucky.
The interstate is also called the Mid-State Corridor.
Project leader Hank Menke says he may not see the interstate in his lifetime, but knows the county needs it.
Menke says they are now in the process of trying to figure out how to fund the road.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 25, 2015, 09:23:43 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 14, 2014, 03:47:37 PM
This July 14 Messenger-Inquirer article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/mid-state-connector-could-be-a-toll-road/article_c3dcbd16-0eee-578c-991d-34e9267643b6.html?success=2) reports that promoters of the project have stopped referring to it as "I-67" in favor of "Mid-State Corridor ("M-SC")" and that the M-SC should be started in the next five to ten years ... :
Quote
... the Mid-State Corridor -- formerly called I-67 -- from Pike County, Indiana, to the Natcher Bridge east of Owensboro should be started in the next five to 10 years ....
The promoters of the project, including Owensboro and Daviess County officials, dropped the I-67 name because only federal officials can create an interstate highway.
But Menke said the group still wants to see I-67.
"Our goal is to get an interstate designation once we start building the highway[/b]," he said. "That interstate symbol is very important to communities." ....
The July 14 article also reports that Indiana's share of the M-SC would be $444 million
This Feb. 20 article (http://www.14news.com/story/28163042/mid-state-corridor-closer-to-reality) reports that the Mid-State Corridor/ Interstate 67 ("I-67") has slowly moved up the ladder to become a Tier 2 project, a development which I-67 promoters contend means that it is now closer to reality:
Quote
The group trying to get an interstate connecting Dubois County to Indianapolis has learned it is closer to a reality.
INDOT told the I-67 corporation the interstate is a Tier 2 project.
They've also learned the US-231 bridge has met interstate standards. That's the bridge they would like to use to connect to Kentucky.
The interstate is also called the Mid-State Corridor.
Project leader Hank Menke says he may not see the interstate in his lifetime, but knows the county needs it.
Menke says they are now in the process of trying to figure out how to fund the road.
Why are they so obsessed with getting this to be an interstate in southern Indiana? what's wrong with a simple rural divided highway? this interstate is useless! should we now upgrade every conceivable corridor in the state to interstate standards? Why not make us 50 through Indiana an interstate or us 30? why isn't 69 good enough? from an indiana perspective, this project should literally be the absolute lowest of low priority, even lower than that asinine "commerce connector" politicians keep bringing up. They can't even figure out how to pay for the remaining gap in 69 in Indiana, now they want another interstate? The communities that 67 would connect, at least in Indiana don't warrant an interstate at all.
You're right - the interstate isn't needed. Same with the proposed upgrade of the Natcher Parkway to an I-65 spur, which my local reps seem to think is up to $150 million worth spending (never mind that the money doesn't exist).
KYTC needs to save about $149.5 million and petition AASHTO to move the 231 designation over to the parkway, and INDOT should call the MSC 231 as well. It would be cheaper over the long term, yet do the same basic thing.
US 231 does need to be upgraded to a four-lane between Dale/I-64 and Loogootee, but not an interstate.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 26, 2015, 08:54:42 AM
You're right - the interstate isn't needed. Same with the proposed upgrade of the Natcher Parkway to an I-65 spur, which my local reps seem to think is up to $150 million worth spending (never mind that the money doesn't exist).
KYTC needs to save about $149.5 million and petition AASHTO to move the 231 designation over to the parkway, and INDOT should call the MSC 231 as well. It would be cheaper over the long term, yet do the same basic thing.
What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 26, 2015, 01:16:34 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 26, 2015, 08:54:42 AM
You're right - the interstate isn't needed. Same with the proposed upgrade of the Natcher Parkway to an I-65 spur, which my local reps seem to think is up to $150 million worth spending (never mind that the money doesn't exist).
KYTC needs to save about $149.5 million and petition AASHTO to move the 231 designation over to the parkway, and INDOT should call the MSC 231 as well. It would be cheaper over the long term, yet do the same basic thing.
What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.
The rules are there for safety and many other purposes. what really needs to happen is people need to stop thinking interstates are the end all be all to solve all problems
Somebody in the road planning department played too much D&D in their youth and dreams of someday having an interstate map of Indy look like a chaos symbol.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2015, 07:36:24 PM
The rules are there for safety and many other purposes.
As I was saying...
Quote from: hbelkins on February 26, 2015, 01:16:34 PM
What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.
Kentucky's four-lane interstates are no more safe than the parkways. The speed limit is 70 on both classifications of routes. I doubt you could tell me if you were on an interstate or a parkway if I plopped you down in the middle of one of our limited-access four-lane routes.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 26, 2015, 08:27:12 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2015, 07:36:24 PM
The rules are there for safety and many other purposes.
As I was saying...
Quote from: hbelkins on February 26, 2015, 01:16:34 PM
What really needs to happen is for FHWA to relax its standards on what existing roads can have Interstate route markers placed on them. Trust me, the average motorist isn't going to be able to tell any difference between the Natcher Parkway and the four-lane sections of I-65.
Kentucky's four-lane interstates are no more safe than the parkways. The speed limit is 70 on both classifications of routes. I doubt you could tell me if you were on an interstate or a parkway if I plopped you down in the middle of one of our limited-access four-lane routes.
I'm not doubting you on that, I know some of the interchanges are substandard for interstates. I'm not too familiar with your state, what about the parkways makes them not allowed to be interstates? I'm curious.
My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...
A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2015, 12:52:33 PM
My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...
A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.
you're right, they should relax their standards, those all seem nit picky. One thing I've always wondered, why aren't Kentucky's parkways signed as state routes or us highways instead? a lot of them run parallel to one or both.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 27, 2015, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2015, 12:52:33 PM
My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...
A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.
you're right, they should relax their standards, those all seem nit picky. One thing I've always wondered, why aren't Kentucky's parkways signed as state routes or us highways instead? a lot of them run parallel to one or both.
I think they carry secret state route designations, and they used to be tolled, so the US highways had to stay on their alignments to provide the free alternative.
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 27, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 27, 2015, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2015, 12:52:33 PM
My guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits. Of course, I-70 in Pennsylvania has stop signs at the ends of some ramps, so...
A couple of bridges on the WK Parkway were a bit too low for interstate standards, so the road surface had to be lowered for the I-69 signage to be placed on the route.
you're right, they should relax their standards, those all seem nit picky. One thing I've always wondered, why aren't Kentucky's parkways signed as state routes or us highways instead? a lot of them run parallel to one or both.
I think they carry secret state route designations, and they used to be tolled, so the US highways had to stay on their alignments to provide the free alternative.
Yeah, they carry the designations KY-9000, KY-9001, ... , KY-9009.
QuoteMy guess would be median width, and possibly the length of acceleration lanes at some exits.
Shoulder width too.
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2015, 08:29:59 AM
Shoulder width too.
Inside shoulder, perhaps. I think the outside shoulders are compliant.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2015, 08:32:08 PM
what about the parkways makes them not allowed to be interstates?
This May, 2014 Executive Summary (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/Executive%20Summary.pdf) includes a "Table ES-2 Deficiencies Summary" for the Audubon Parkway, the Natcher Parkway, and US 60 in Daviess County (pp. 18-22/23 of pdf: pp. 16-20 of document).
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 25, 2015, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 25, 2015, 09:23:43 PM
This Feb. 20 article (http://www.14news.com/story/28163042/mid-state-corridor-closer-to-reality) reports that the Mid-State Corridor/ Interstate 67 ("I-67") has slowly moved up the ladder to become a Tier 2 project, a development which I-67 promoters contend means that it is now closer to reality:
Quote
The group trying to get an interstate connecting Dubois County to Indianapolis has learned it is closer to a reality.
INDOT told the I-67 corporation the interstate is a Tier 2 project.
They've also learned the US-231 bridge has met interstate standards. That's the bridge they would like to use to connect to Kentucky.
The interstate is also called the Mid-State Corridor.
Why are they so obsessed with getting this to be an interstate in southern Indiana? what's wrong with a simple rural divided highway? this interstate is useless!
They continue to plug away. This article (http://www.duboiscountyfreepress.com/dubois-strong-announces-10000-commitment-to-mid-state-corridor/) reports that Dubois Strong, the county's economic development organization, has committed $10,000 over a two year period to the Mid-State Corridor project:
Quote
Dubois Strong has committed $10,000 over a two year period to the Mid-State Corridor project, formerly called the Interstate 67 project.
This venture would link Dubois County directly to Owensboro and Indianapolis, connecting the county via the proposed new road's intersection with I-69 ....
the funding will support the group's efforts for the next two years and will be used for engineering work and studying possible ways to pay for the project, such as a tax, tolls or local government involvement ....
After the publication of the Cambridge Study in 2012, the Mid-State Corridor group had findings that indicated the corridor would greatly impact the local economy and address safety issues on U.S. 231. The corridor would use the improved U.S. 231 and then connect to I-69 through the Mid-State Corridor.
The money will be used for pre-engineering work and design and bring in experts to determine how the road can be funded ....
Dubois Strong, the county's economic development organization, is a public-private partnership devoted to fostering economic growth to drive retention and expansion of existing local business while attracting new employers and supporting entrepreneurs, thereby strengthening the county's competitive position and generating prosperity for all residents.
Here is a link to the Cambridge Systematics October, 2012 I-67 Corridor Feasibility Study referenced in the article:
http://www.camsys.com/pubs/I67_corr_oct12.pdf
I read that I-67 study. They claim that it would provide congestion relief for I-65 yet their own traffic projection numbers suggest there would be minimal (or in some locations ZERO) relief.
I see the idea of upgrading the Natcher Parkway to interstate standards is still active:
http://www.wave3.com/story/28698204/daviess-co-leaders-want-natcher-parkway-upgraded-to-interstate-standards
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 18, 2015, 11:28:55 PM
I see the idea of upgrading the Natcher Parkway to interstate standards is still active:
http://www.wave3.com/story/28698204/daviess-co-leaders-want-natcher-parkway-upgraded-to-interstate-standards
I could see this being a I-x65 (I-165 would be a good one).
Why Petersburg? The Jasper, IN area has a lot of industry, and actually has been in need of a four lane road to I-64 or I-69 for years, and a true bypass would have been good as well. Petersburg already has I-69 and almost no industry for its 2500 residents.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on November 05, 2016, 11:40:35 AM
Why Petersburg? The Jasper, IN area has a lot of industry, and actually has been in need of a four lane road to I-64 or I-69 for years, and a true bypass would have been good as well. Petersburg already has I-69 and almost no industry for its 2500 residents.
eventually, us 231 will be a 4 lane divided highway in most of the state.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 07, 2015, 07:08:18 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 18, 2015, 11:28:55 PM
I see the idea of upgrading the Natcher Parkway to interstate standards is still active:
http://www.wave3.com/story/28698204/daviess-co-leaders-want-natcher-parkway-upgraded-to-interstate-standards
I could see this being a I-x65 (I-165 would be a good one).
They have assigned the "Future Interstate 565" designation to the route.
Who are "they", and when were the planning to petition AASHTO and FHWA for such a route number? Until that happens and is approved, it's not an official Future Interstate.
Quote from: froggie on November 08, 2016, 08:42:25 AM
Who are "they", and when were the planning to petition AASHTO and FHWA for such a route number? Until that happens and is approved, it's not an official Future Interstate.
KYTC submitted it, and they declined I-565, but Approved Future I-565.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 08, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 08, 2016, 08:42:25 AM
Who are "they", and when were the planning to petition AASHTO and FHWA for such a route number? Until that happens and is approved, it's not an official Future Interstate.
KYTC submitted it, and they declined I-565, but Approved Future I-565.
They didn't submit a request: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14873.msg2183548#msg2183548
Quote from: mvak36 on November 08, 2016, 04:25:32 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 08, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 08, 2016, 08:42:25 AM
Who are "they", and when were the planning to petition AASHTO and FHWA for such a route number? Until that happens and is approved, it's not an official Future Interstate.
KYTC submitted it, and they declined I-565, but Approved Future I-565.
They didn't submit a request: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14873.msg2183548#msg2183548
I thought they did. My bad
http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/news/new-law-could-open-way-for-additional-southern-interstate/article_e6516a81-4bbb-520c-8814-f87eb3d24d2b.html
New law could open way for additional southern interstate
Mike Grant CNHI News Indiana May 2, 2017
QuoteA unique bill for new road funding could open the way for construction of a new interstate highway in southern Indiana.
Late last week, Governor Eric Holcomb signed Senate Enrolled Act 128, also known as the Regional Infrastructure bill, into law. The measure was authored by State Rep. Mike Braun and State Senator Mark Messmer, both Republicans from Jasper. The bill will allow counties, or municipalities, to establish a Regional Development Authority to raise funds specifically for infrastructure projects like highways, bridges, rail lines, airports, public transportation and other infrastructure improvements.
"I was really pleased that it went through," said Representative Braun. "We started working on this bill last session, but didn't put it together until this one."
Braun points out that Indiana has been struggling to come up with funding for road projects. Right now it has money to fund the major ones on the books like the completion of I-69 between Indianapolis and Martinsville, and the new bridge over the Ohio between Evansville and Henderson, Kentucky.
"The problem is there was not enough money to get any other major projects past the talking stage," he said. "This is a long-term funding bill that will allow for the establishment of Regional Development Authorities that can pay for some of the road funding."
Under the bill cities and counties could take money from any number of sources, including general funds, rainy day funds and other funds to put together money for a major project. The project would go to the Indiana Department of Transportation where it would be vetted, and if acceptable, the local funding could be used to help cover the state matching funds on a major project.
"Most big projects in Indiana are built with federal highway funds," explained Braun. "The state normally has to cover about 20 percent of the cost. The Regional Development Authority fund would be used to off-set the funding for the state match. This law gives regional areas additional tools to help fund their specific infrastructure projects. By providing new ways for local governments and businesses to have skin in the game, we can encourage them to prioritize projects that have a greater economic or regional impact while also working to improve the quality of roads and bridges in their areas."
Mid-State Corridor
Officials in Dubois and surrounding counties have a specific project they wish to push under the new law. The Mid-State Corridor would connect onto I-69 somewhere in Daviess County and extend south to the Ohio River to Owensboro, Kentucky. Along the way it will create interstate access to Martin, Dubois, and Spencer counties.
"We have talked about this project, especially a bypass connecting the industrial areas in Huntingburg and Jasper, forever," said Braun. "We can now get this going. We have already had a meeting to begin forming the RDA. This law is like a green light to work on the Mid-State Corridor. I think it will come together pretty quickly in Dubois and Spencer counties. There is still some question where it will go once it gets to the north of Dubois County."
The Regional Infrastructure Bill is a piece of unique Indiana legislation. Braun says there is nothing like it elsewhere in the country. The Indiana Legislature normally does not embrace new ideas the first one or two times through.
"I am really pleased that it went through on the first attempt," he said. "We were lucky. Senator Luke Kenley (Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee) liked it and became a supporter, then INDOT got on board. The Indiana Finance Authority liked it. When we removed the provisions for a referendum and potential property tax increases, the Farm Bureau got on board and then came a cascade of support. I think the state liked the idea of local governments getting involved in infrastructure projects and being willing to put up some of their money to do it."
The Regional Infrastructure law came during the same session at HB 1002 which will raise billions of dollars in new funding for Indiana roads and bridges through a higher gas tax and increases in registration fees for vehicles.
"The Regional Infrastructure law is a great companion to HB 1002," said Braun. "The bill will help fast track some projects that have not gone anywhere even though they have had local support."
this project is a waste of time and money, literally anything you could think of transportationwise is more important to do in indiana before doing this bullshit. make 231 a divided highway and be done with it.
I agree.
Kokomo, Vincennes, Logansport, Bedford, Warsaw, are all Indiana communities larger than Jasper that are not connected to an interstate highway.
If Ft. Wayne to Chicago, Evansville to Chicago, South Bend to Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne to Lafayette are all adequately served by a limited access US route, then there is absolutely no reason a Jasper to Owensboro route can't be as well.
Agreed. I've lived in the area for over fifty years, and the US-231 corridor between Jasper and Huntingburg has been discussed for decades. They've even thrown money at it in the 70s with the super two highway that went between the two cities, dropping in at the tow outskirts. Back then they should have put in a four lane bypassing Jasper for the industrial traffic down to I-64. They don't need an interstate, but a four lane would have been a good idea to get the furniture factory traffic down to the main east/west interstate.
I doubt we will ever see an Interstate 67 in any of these states. Is one really needed?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
I doubt we will ever see an Interstate 67 in any of these states. Is one really needed?
Needed? No. You have a road from Bowling Green to Owensboro that is already at or very near interstate standard. You also have a road from South Bend to Plymouth that is at interstate standard, and you have I-69 covering much of what is in between. I don't think the segment from Owensboro to wherever it would tie in with I-69 needs to be interstate standard, and I don't think the rest of US 31 between Westfield and Plymouth that hasn't been converted yet needs to be. From Indiana's standpoint I think 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70 is more important.
Still, if at some point in the future the rest of that upgrading is done, then I-67 makes sense. Even if only the rest of what is between Westfield and Plymouth gets done, designating US 31 from South Bend to Indy as I-67 makes sense.
Except Kentucky already plans to sign the Natcher as an x65 instead of 67.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 09, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
I doubt we will ever see an Interstate 67 in any of these states. Is one really needed?
Needed? No. You have a road from Bowling Green to Owensboro that is already at or very near interstate standard. You also have a road from South Bend to Plymouth that is at interstate standard, and you have I-69 covering much of what is in between. I don't think the segment from Owensboro to wherever it would tie in with I-69 needs to be interstate standard, and I don't think the rest of US 31 between Westfield and Plymouth that hasn't been converted yet needs to be. From Indiana's standpoint I think 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70 is more important.
Still, if at some point in the future the rest of that upgrading is done, then I-67 makes sense. Even if only the rest of what is between Westfield and Plymouth gets done, designating US 31 from South Bend to Indy as I-67 makes sense.
In that instance, the I-67 designation could be applied to the US-20/31 bypass around South Bend and continue northward along the US-31 freeway into Michigan. The interchange with the South Bend Bypass and the new US-31 freeway heading south toward Plymouth would have to be upgraded from the current cloverleaf design to a high-speed directional configuration.
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:16:10 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 09, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
I doubt we will ever see an Interstate 67 in any of these states. Is one really needed?
Needed? No. You have a road from Bowling Green to Owensboro that is already at or very near interstate standard. You also have a road from South Bend to Plymouth that is at interstate standard, and you have I-69 covering much of what is in between. I don't think the segment from Owensboro to wherever it would tie in with I-69 needs to be interstate standard, and I don't think the rest of US 31 between Westfield and Plymouth that hasn't been converted yet needs to be. From Indiana's standpoint I think 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70 is more important.
Still, if at some point in the future the rest of that upgrading is done, then I-67 makes sense. Even if only the rest of what is between Westfield and Plymouth gets done, designating US 31 from South Bend to Indy as I-67 makes sense.
In that instance, the I-67 designation could be applied to the US-20/31 bypass around South Bend and continue northward along the US-31 freeway into Michigan. The interchange with the South Bend Bypass and the new US-31 freeway heading south toward Plymouth would have to be upgraded from the current cloverleaf design to a high-speed directional configuration.
i've heard that 31 north of 465 could become 67 in the future, but that's just wikipedia.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 10, 2017, 07:28:30 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:16:10 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 09, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
I doubt we will ever see an Interstate 67 in any of these states. Is one really needed?
Needed? No. You have a road from Bowling Green to Owensboro that is already at or very near interstate standard. You also have a road from South Bend to Plymouth that is at interstate standard, and you have I-69 covering much of what is in between. I don't think the segment from Owensboro to wherever it would tie in with I-69 needs to be interstate standard, and I don't think the rest of US 31 between Westfield and Plymouth that hasn't been converted yet needs to be. From Indiana's standpoint I think 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70 is more important.
Still, if at some point in the future the rest of that upgrading is done, then I-67 makes sense. Even if only the rest of what is between Westfield and Plymouth gets done, designating US 31 from South Bend to Indy as I-67 makes sense.
In that instance, the I-67 designation could be applied to the US-20/31 bypass around South Bend and continue northward along the US-31 freeway into Michigan. The interchange with the South Bend Bypass and the new US-31 freeway heading south toward Plymouth would have to be upgraded from the current cloverleaf design to a high-speed directional configuration.
i've heard that 31 north of 465 could become 67 in the future, but that's just wikipedia.
An I-67 between Indianapolis and Grand Rapids using US-31 and I-196 (assuming Michigan eventually closes that gap) makes better sense to me than it's current proposed routing in KY and IN.
There can be too much of a good thing. And FWIW, the proposed route would be on the wrong side of I-65, but the I-69 extension also is.
I wonder what has become of the US 219 plans in western PA? An I-67 there would be a far worse violation of the grid than I-99 in the central part of that state!
Quote from: LM117 on May 10, 2017, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 10, 2017, 07:28:30 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on May 09, 2017, 11:16:10 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 09, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 08, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
I doubt we will ever see an Interstate 67 in any of these states. Is one really needed?
Needed? No. You have a road from Bowling Green to Owensboro that is already at or very near interstate standard. You also have a road from South Bend to Plymouth that is at interstate standard, and you have I-69 covering much of what is in between. I don't think the segment from Owensboro to wherever it would tie in with I-69 needs to be interstate standard, and I don't think the rest of US 31 between Westfield and Plymouth that hasn't been converted yet needs to be. From Indiana's standpoint I think 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70 is more important.
Still, if at some point in the future the rest of that upgrading is done, then I-67 makes sense. Even if only the rest of what is between Westfield and Plymouth gets done, designating US 31 from South Bend to Indy as I-67 makes sense.
In that instance, the I-67 designation could be applied to the US-20/31 bypass around South Bend and continue northward along the US-31 freeway into Michigan. The interchange with the South Bend Bypass and the new US-31 freeway heading south toward Plymouth would have to be upgraded from the current cloverleaf design to a high-speed directional configuration.
i've heard that 31 north of 465 could become 67 in the future, but that's just wikipedia.
An I-67 between Indianapolis and Grand Rapids using US-31 and I-196 (assuming Michigan eventually closes that gap) makes better sense to me than it's current proposed routing in KY and IN.
If anything, US 31 north of Indianapolis and a subsumed I-196 would be the most appropriate place to designate a I-67. Multiplexing it south over the new segments of I-69 just to serve Owensboro, KY would be more than gratuitous (regardless of the ambitions of its mayor). The segment of US 231 from Crane south to I-64 doesn't have nearly the traffic volume to warrant Interstate-level upgrades, although in the longer term it's possible that a connector from I-64 to Owensboro south of there along 231 might eventually be an auxiliary Interstate route -- just not I-67!
owensboro seems to live in the shadow of evansville.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 18, 2017, 10:33:49 PM
owensboro seems to live in the shadow of evansville.
Downtown Owensboro is quite impressive, at least when I visited a few weeks ago. I don't remember it having a huge playground and park on the river when I was last there in 2005.
That must be due to recent redevelopment. I went through Owensboro five or six years ago and it was a rather depressing place. Seemed to be just yet another dying old industrial city.
I concur with what was previously said. If I-67 comes about at all, the most logical corridor would be from Indianapolis to Grand Rapids along the US 31/I-196 corridor (or perhaps ending in Benton Harbor, as the US 31 freeway will not tie directly into I-196).
Though there are indeed higher priorities in Indiana, with the recent gas tax hike (with indexing), I could see the remaining segments of US 31 between South Bend and Indianapolis being converted to freeway within the next 10-15 years, so maybe an I-67 designation is not too far off.
Quote from: I-39 on May 21, 2017, 11:08:43 AM
I concur with what was previously said. If I-67 comes about at all, the most logical corridor would be from Indianapolis to Grand Rapids along the US 31/I-196 corridor (or perhaps ending in Benton Harbor, as the US 31 freeway will not tie directly into I-196).
Though there are indeed higher priorities in Indiana, with the recent gas tax hike (with indexing), I could see the remaining segments of US 31 between South Bend and Indianapolis being converted to freeway within the next 10-15 years, so maybe an I-67 designation is not too far off.
If there's enough pressure brought to bear by intrastate interests, a full-length upgrade and Interstate (67, of course) designation will likely be proposed within a decade or two, particularly if smaller upgrades such as extending the Kokomo bypass north and south a bit at a time are undertaken. North of the Wabash River, there is only sporadic private access to address; it's the rest of the route south of there that will be tricky in that respect. Nevertheless, it's seemingly on both state and regional radars; so don't be surprised to see something along these lines proposed in the next 20 years or so (actually getting it done will be another story).
The biggest issue with getting I-67 designated between Indianapolis and Grand Rapids is Michigan's lack of interest in new interstates. Michigan would probably show as much interest in I-67 as they do with I-73. In other words, zero.
Very few states are actively pursuing new interstates these days. North Carolina, Kentucky and Texas are the most notable that come to mind. NC is probably at the top of the list since they gained 3 new future interstates within a year (I-42, I-87, I-587), and that's not including I-795's extension southward along US-117 to I-40 being written into law as part of the FAST Act.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 19, 2017, 09:00:47 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 18, 2017, 10:33:49 PM
owensboro seems to live in the shadow of evansville.
Downtown Owensboro is quite impressive, at least when I visited a few weeks ago. I don't remember it having a huge playground and park on the river when I was last there in 2005.
The riverfront is very nice. Unfortunately, for the residents of Owensboro, they are now finding that it has quite the price tag. A series of tax increases are on the books, with more possible. This playground and riverfront was the brainchild of Mayor Ron Payne...the same mayor who seriously tried to get an already completed I-69 rerouted over the new Owensboro bridge, and was one of the largest proponents of this I-67 nonsense. He also got publicly played by the less than reputable former owner of the Evansville minor league hockey team.
The guy apparently loved his hometown, but that love overloaded his brain. A "free" multi-million playground and park is nice and all, but it generates zero revenue. Payne is out of office, and I imagine any hopes of a I-67 ever existing south of Indianapolis went along with him.
I think we can forget about an Interstate 67 being built anytime soon, if ever.
Quote from: LM117 on May 21, 2017, 04:23:08 PM
The biggest issue with getting I-67 designated between Indianapolis and Grand Rapids is Michigan's lack of interest in new interstates. Michigan would probably show as much interest in I-67 as they do with I-73. In other words, zero.
Michigan got disgusted with the I-73 concept early on, when it became clear that extending anything from Jackson SE to the Toledo area would run into NIMBY issues no matter where the alignment was situated. And north of there all the way to I-75 US 127 is a perfectly serviceable facility (if a little shopworn in spots), so even the spot upgrades needed to achieve Interstate criteria might not be deemed cost-effective.
But if Indiana makes a push for I-67 along US 31, it's a distinct possibility that Michigan will at least opt for a like designation as far as Benton Harbor -- with the connection to I-94 being conceptually finalized. Whether they're willing to re-designate I-196 to follow suit and continue the I-67 corridor concept all the way to Grand Rapids has yet to be seen. But Indiana would, in all likelihood, have to take the reins of this project and then convince Michigan to accede in whatever way can be negotiated. I'm sure western Michigan interests -- particularly those involved in recreational activities along Lake Michigan and its inlets -- would welcome a singular route that could convey Indiana consumers (as well as those further south) to their facilities -- possibly enough to sway MiDOT to take part in re-signage.
Quote from: sparker on May 23, 2017, 04:14:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 21, 2017, 04:23:08 PM
The biggest issue with getting I-67 designated between Indianapolis and Grand Rapids is Michigan's lack of interest in new interstates. Michigan would probably show as much interest in I-67 as they do with I-73. In other words, zero.
Michigan got disgusted with the I-73 concept early on, when it became clear that extending anything from Jackson SE to the Toledo area would run into NIMBY issues no matter where the alignment was situated. And north of there all the way to I-75 US 127 is a perfectly serviceable facility (if a little shopworn in spots), so even the spot upgrades needed to achieve Interstate criteria might not be deemed cost-effective.
But if Indiana makes a push for I-67 along US 31, it's a distinct possibility that Michigan will at least opt for a like designation as far as Benton Harbor -- with the connection to I-94 being conceptually finalized. Whether they're willing to re-designate I-196 to follow suit and continue the I-67 corridor concept all the way to Grand Rapids has yet to be seen. But Indiana would, in all likelihood, have to take the reins of this project and then convince Michigan to accede in whatever way can be negotiated. I'm sure western Michigan interests -- particularly those involved in recreational activities along Lake Michigan and its inlets -- would welcome a singular route that could convey Indiana consumers (as well as those further south) to their facilities -- possibly enough to sway MiDOT to take part in re-signage.
It would make sense for Michigan to sign I-67 up along US 31 to I-94, as it would make it a true Interstate highway. It would just be a matter of putting up new signs. The burden is more so on Indiana to finish the freeway upgrades on US 31 (including figuring out what to do with the cloverleaf interchange in South Bend), which has to happen first before they can even discuss an Interstate designation.
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 09:08:46 PM
It would make sense for Michigan to sign I-67 up along US 31 to I-94, as it would make it a true Interstate highway. It would just be a matter of putting up new signs. The burden is more so on Indiana to finish the freeway upgrades on US 31 (including figuring out what to do with the cloverleaf interchange in South Bend), which has to happen first before they can even discuss an Interstate designation.
I'm sure that cloverleaf is a stop-gap solution that was retained for the sake of frugality (flyovers can be budget-busters!). It's probable that this discrepancy will be addressed if & when Interstate status is actually on the table as just one of a litany of upgrades needed for such a project. Taking care of the residents along the conventional 4-lane portion of the route north & south of Kokomo, whether by frontage road, construction of alternate access points, or even selective buyouts, will be a bigger issue.
Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2017, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 09:08:46 PM
It would make sense for Michigan to sign I-67 up along US 31 to I-94, as it would make it a true Interstate highway. It would just be a matter of putting up new signs. The burden is more so on Indiana to finish the freeway upgrades on US 31 (including figuring out what to do with the cloverleaf interchange in South Bend), which has to happen first before they can even discuss an Interstate designation.
I'm sure that cloverleaf is a stop-gap solution that was retained for the sake of frugality (flyovers can be budget-busters!).
An interstate designation probably wasn't even a consideration when the cloverleaf was built, so it was deemed to be adequate at the time.
i believe the original plans called for flyovers at that 20/31 interchange, but were cut out to save money.
Quote from: codyg1985 on May 25, 2017, 07:39:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2017, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2017, 09:08:46 PM
It would make sense for Michigan to sign I-67 up along US 31 to I-94, as it would make it a true Interstate highway. It would just be a matter of putting up new signs. The burden is more so on Indiana to finish the freeway upgrades on US 31 (including figuring out what to do with the cloverleaf interchange in South Bend), which has to happen first before they can even discuss an Interstate designation.
I'm sure that cloverleaf is a stop-gap solution that was retained for the sake of frugality (flyovers can be budget-busters!).
An interstate designation probably wasn't even a consideration when the cloverleaf was built, so it was deemed to be adequate at the time.
Like the Kentucky parkways. The "Future I-69" designation was contingent at fixing the cloverleafs at the WK-Pennyrile and Purchase-I-24 interchanges.
Meanwhile I-55 in Memphis is still a cloverleaf...
Quote from: hbelkins on May 25, 2017, 12:49:54 PM
Like the Kentucky parkways. The "Future I-69" designation was contingent at fixing the cloverleafs at the WK-Pennyrile and Purchase-I-24 interchanges.
Meanwhile I-55 in Memphis is still a cloverleaf...
So whatever happened to the I-55/Crump upgrade? IIRC, plans were published that showed the details of the rework -- as of a few short years ago, this seemed to be a done deal! Obviously funding (and in-state priorities) had something to do with the inaction here -- if any local/regional posters have any further info regarding this project's status, please let the rest of us know! (apologies for using this thread to ask a Mid-South question)
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 25, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
i believe the original plans called for flyovers at that 20/31 interchange, but were cut out to save money.
Yes, exactly. Before construction began, maps on the project website, http://www.us31plysb.com/maps.html (http://www.us31plysb.com/maps.html), showed flyovers for both the NB-to-WB and WB-to-SB movements. The maps were revised later. I'm sure the ramps were eliminated to save dollars. INDOT ended up using the existing ramps, though a bit extended to the south along the new highway.
This cloverleaf was built in the fifties as the first part of South Bend's western bypass. It has been virtually untouched since, save for repaving. Of course, it would need major revision if US 31 were ever converted to interstate status.
At least they planned ahead for a better system interchange there with that Jackson Rd overpass. They've got plenty of room to come back and build the flyovers some day.
I'm hoping that the new Fellows St. overpass, which goes over the eastern part of the interchange, was built with possible future flyovers in mind. Presumably, the WB US 20 to SB US 31 ramp could fit under that bridge before flying up and over the mainline US 20.
Another development regarding this interchange just came out today: http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/business/menards-plans-to-build-new-south-bend-store/article_a52be6bc-9d4d-53ce-9158-4e238aca1f3e.html (http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/business/menards-plans-to-build-new-south-bend-store/article_a52be6bc-9d4d-53ce-9158-4e238aca1f3e.html). Menards has purchased the former Sears Essentials (née Kmart) store and several other adjacent properties, apparently part of a plan to build a new store. I don't know what impact that development might have on future road construction. A Holiday Inn Express is also going up between the Sears site and US 31, which may further impinge future road construction.
The saving grace may be that the cloverleaf was built back in the fifties with a rather large footprint, so there is a good bit of land already in the right-of-way.
The flyovers at US 31/20 in South Bend should be done when the corridor between US 24 and South Bend is converted to freeway. However, unless the feasibility study out for the remaining segments between Indianapolis and South Bend says otherwise, I think it will be a little while before the US 31 corridor north of Kokomo is converted.
That being said, they should go ahead and do the segment between Kokomo and SR 38 (as well as rebuild the pavement, woof, it's terrible).
INDOT plans to turn 31 at SR 10 and SR 110 into Jturns
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 23, 2017, 03:46:10 PM
I think we can forget about an Interstate 67 being built anytime soon, if ever.
People can't be satisfied to leave well enough alone. (Paywall alert)
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/hope-still-remains-for-i--project/article_9d99f641-819c-5210-a670-b28b9722aa12.html
The gist is this: Dubois and Spencer counties, plus the cities of Huntingburg and Jasper, are ponying up half the cost of a highway feasibility study (the rest of the $3.5 million will come from unnamed area companies), thanks to a new Indiana law passed in 2017 that allows local development authorities to qualify for federal highway funds.
And of course Owensboro, which is getting an Interstate (I-165) thanks to the conversion of the Natcher Parkway, wants in.
"Owensboro's not on the beaten path," said Mayor
McCheese Tom Watson, a man apparently oblivious to the fact that I-165 is coming. "Our four-lane highway is the Ohio River, and it's been that way for years. But that won't cut it much longer if you're trying to make the city a destination and a distribution point for companies. If you want those visitors and you want those jobs, you need an interstate."
I can see upgrading 231 in Dubois and Martin counties (yes, bypass Jasper and H'burg), and 50 from Loogootee to Washington as a connector, but drop the Interstate idea. There are better ways to spend a buck.
But what do I know?
If I'm not mistaken the Green River Natcher and Audubon parkways have served Owensboro for at least 40 years. And the last time I checked, they (along with the US 60 bypass) are full freeways.
I still don't know what happened to the "Future I-69 Spur" signs on the Audubon. They've been gone for several years now, even as "Future I-65 Spur" signs have gone up on the Natcher.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on May 02, 2018, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 23, 2017, 03:46:10 PM
I think we can forget about an Interstate 67 being built anytime soon, if ever.
People can't be satisfied to leave well enough alone. (Paywall alert)
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/hope-still-remains-for-i--project/article_9d99f641-819c-5210-a670-b28b9722aa12.html
The gist is this: Dubois and Spencer counties, plus the cities of Huntingburg and Jasper, are ponying up half the cost of a highway feasibility study (the rest of the $3.5 million will come from unnamed area companies), thanks to a new Indiana law passed in 2017 that allows local development authorities to qualify for federal highway funds.
And of course Owensboro, which is getting an Interstate (I-165) thanks to the conversion of the Natcher Parkway, wants in.
"Owensboro's not on the beaten path," said Mayor McCheese Tom Watson, a man apparently oblivious to the fact that I-165 is coming. "Our four-lane highway is the Ohio River, and it's been that way for years. But that won't cut it much longer if you're trying to make the city a destination and a distribution point for companies. If you want those visitors and you want those jobs, you need an interstate."
I can see upgrading 231 in Dubois and Martin counties (yes, bypass Jasper and H'burg), and 50 from Loogootee to Washington as a connector, but drop the Interstate idea. There are better ways to spend a buck.
But what do I know?
....Meet the new boss; same as the old boss..... (apologies to Townshend/Daltrey). Looks like the new Owensboro mayor is taking up where the previous one left off -- trying to get a new Interstate corridor through his burg. Plainly he doesn't think a spur designation (I-165) is sufficient to ensure traffic through (although it would actually be
around the central area of his town) the region. But like his predecessor, he's too busy dredging up now-abandoned plans -- particularly those involving an adjoining state -- which will likely never see the light of day. If he
really wants a 2di serving Owensboro, a possibility is staring him in the face that he just can't for the life of him see! :confused: That would be, simply, combining the Audubon and Natcher facilities, along with the connecting section of Bypass 60 around Owensboro, into a single corridor about 100 miles long and calling it I-63. Of course, some modification to the trumpet interchanges between the parkways and Bypass 60 would have to be made at some point -- put that would be the case regardless of whatever corridor configuration emerged under the original concept. Such a corridor would terminate (or close) at a national Interstate corridor (I-65, I-69) at both ends; Owensboro would make a fine (and obvious) control city from either, and they'd finally get their long sought-after 2di with less fuss & muss than by any other machinations. I for one don't begrudge Owensboro or its city government its ambition (they're not doing anything other cities around the country haven't tried or considered) -- but it could clearly be achieved without dragging other jurisdictions such as Indiana into the process.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 02:39:52 PM
If I'm not mistaken the Green River Natcher and Audubon parkways have served Owensboro for at least 40 years. And the last time I checked, they (along with the US 60 bypass) are full freeways.
I still don't know what happened to the "Future I-69 Spur" signs on the Audubon. They've been gone for several years now, even as "Future I-65 Spur" signs have gone up on the Natcher.
Amen.
Not sure on the spur signs. I forget exactly when they went away, but I think it was during the resurfacing/re-signing projects that were done over the last 4-5 years.
Has the bypass around Kokomo been completed yet? If so wouldn't that make US-31 a full freeway between Benton Harbor and I-465? I have never used US-31 between South Bend and Indy. I was looking at the gap between Napier and I-196 thinking that could easily become I-67 if that number ever got used. I think between Grand Rapids and Indy is the best case for an I-67.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 01:33:37 AM
Has the bypass around Kokomo been completed yet? If so wouldn't that make US-31 a full freeway between Benton Harbor and I-465? I have never used US-31 between South Bend and Indy. I was looking at the gap between Napier and I-196 thinking that could easily become I-67 if that number ever got used. I think between Grand Rapids and Indy is the best case for an I-67.
There are 3 separate portions of US 31 between Indianapolis and the MI state line that are full freeway (if not fully Interstate-grade): I-465 to IN 38, the Kokomo bypass, and US 30 to the state line (which requires a loop TOTSO NB and a single-lane ramp SB from the US 20 freeway south of South Bend). The remainder is expressway or conventional 4-lane divided rural highway; quite a bit would need to be upgraded to achieve Interstate status.
Once in MI, there's the Napier gap between the north end of the US 31 freeway and I-94 at or near the I-196 junction. A direct-feed (north US 31 to north I-196 and vice-versa) interchange was originally planned, but that ran afoul of environmental concerns regarding a waterway just south of the present 94/196 interchange. The most recent plans call for the US 31 freeway to be curved west from its original alignment to intersect I-94 at the Biz 94 interchange east of Benton Harbor (the interchange immediately west of the I-196 divergence); a full cloverleaf with C/D lanes on I-94 is planned.
Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:04:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 01:33:37 AM
Has the bypass around Kokomo been completed yet? If so wouldn't that make US-31 a full freeway between Benton Harbor and I-465? I have never used US-31 between South Bend and Indy. I was looking at the gap between Napier and I-196 thinking that could easily become I-67 if that number ever got used. I think between Grand Rapids and Indy is the best case for an I-67.
There are 3 separate portions of US 31 between Indianapolis and the MI state line that are full freeway (if not fully Interstate-grade): I-465 to IN 38, the Kokomo bypass, and US 30 to the state line (which requires a loop TOTSO NB and a single-lane ramp SB from the US 20 freeway south of South Bend). The remainder is expressway or conventional 4-lane divided rural highway; quite a bit would need to be upgraded to achieve Interstate status.
Once in MI, there's the Napier gap between the north end of the US 31 freeway and I-94 at or near the I-196 junction. A direct-feed (north US 31 to north I-196 and vice-versa) interchange was originally planned, but that ran afoul of environmental concerns regarding a waterway just south of the present 94/196 interchange. The most recent plans call for the US 31 freeway to be curved west from its original alignment to intersect I-94 at the Biz 94 interchange east of Benton Harbor (the interchange immediately west of the I-196 divergence); a full cloverleaf with C/D lanes on I-94 is planned.
To expand a bit on the Indiana segments. The segment between US 30 at Plymouth and US 24 at Peru doesn't really get enough traffic to justify the expense of upgrading to full freeway. The only real reason to do it would be to get an interstate designation. The segment between US 24 at Peru and US 35 at Kokomo and the segment between IN 26 at Kokomo and IN 38 at Noblesville get enough traffic and have several stoplights so they could warrant upgrading.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 09:04:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:04:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 01:33:37 AM
Has the bypass around Kokomo been completed yet? If so wouldn't that make US-31 a full freeway between Benton Harbor and I-465? I have never used US-31 between South Bend and Indy. I was looking at the gap between Napier and I-196 thinking that could easily become I-67 if that number ever got used. I think between Grand Rapids and Indy is the best case for an I-67.
There are 3 separate portions of US 31 between Indianapolis and the MI state line that are full freeway (if not fully Interstate-grade): I-465 to IN 38, the Kokomo bypass, and US 30 to the state line (which requires a loop TOTSO NB and a single-lane ramp SB from the US 20 freeway south of South Bend). The remainder is expressway or conventional 4-lane divided rural highway; quite a bit would need to be upgraded to achieve Interstate status.
Once in MI, there's the Napier gap between the north end of the US 31 freeway and I-94 at or near the I-196 junction. A direct-feed (north US 31 to north I-196 and vice-versa) interchange was originally planned, but that ran afoul of environmental concerns regarding a waterway just south of the present 94/196 interchange. The most recent plans call for the US 31 freeway to be curved west from its original alignment to intersect I-94 at the Biz 94 interchange east of Benton Harbor (the interchange immediately west of the I-196 divergence); a full cloverleaf with C/D lanes on I-94 is planned.
To expand a bit on the Indiana segments. The segment between US 30 at Plymouth and US 24 at Peru doesn't really get enough traffic to justify the expense of upgrading to full freeway. The only real reason to do it would be to get an interstate designation. The segment between US 24 at Peru and US 35 at Kokomo and the segment between IN 26 at Kokomo and IN 38 at Noblesville get enough traffic and have several stoplights so they could warrant upgrading.
And really once you get north of the truck stop just north of 24, there really aren't many stoplights or drives between there and 30. I believe that segment was upgraded 30ish years ago, bypassing Rochester and some smaller towns to the north. It's a pretty easy drive. I would love for the rest of 31 between Indy and 24 to be upgraded, though. Especially between Kokomo and Indy. The few remaining lights and the RxR crossing are getting dangerous with people coming off of the new segments at higher speeds.
The gap at Napier Road looks like it could be filled in just fine going north through the fields then curving to the east to get around some houses and properties then straight into I-196.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 03:26:32 PM
The gap at Napier Road looks like it could be filled in just fine going north through the fields then curving to the east to get around some houses and properties then straight into I-196.
That was the original plan until those fields were found to contain a rare species of butterfly or something like that. The last 30 years or so have been spent trying to find and fund an alternative.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 03:26:32 PM
The gap at Napier Road looks like it could be filled in just fine going north through the fields then curving to the east to get around some houses and properties then straight into I-196.
That was the original plan until those fields were found to contain a rare species of butterfly or something like that. The last 30 years or so have been spent trying to find and fund an alternative.
They'll figure out how to never get that gap complete, just leave it to MDOT to come up with a stupid reason not to do something.
Quote from: bmeiser on May 03, 2018, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 09:04:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:04:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 01:33:37 AM
Has the bypass around Kokomo been completed yet? If so wouldn't that make US-31 a full freeway between Benton Harbor and I-465? I have never used US-31 between South Bend and Indy. I was looking at the gap between Napier and I-196 thinking that could easily become I-67 if that number ever got used. I think between Grand Rapids and Indy is the best case for an I-67.
There are 3 separate portions of US 31 between Indianapolis and the MI state line that are full freeway (if not fully Interstate-grade): I-465 to IN 38, the Kokomo bypass, and US 30 to the state line (which requires a loop TOTSO NB and a single-lane ramp SB from the US 20 freeway south of South Bend). The remainder is expressway or conventional 4-lane divided rural highway; quite a bit would need to be upgraded to achieve Interstate status.
Once in MI, there's the Napier gap between the north end of the US 31 freeway and I-94 at or near the I-196 junction. A direct-feed (north US 31 to north I-196 and vice-versa) interchange was originally planned, but that ran afoul of environmental concerns regarding a waterway just south of the present 94/196 interchange. The most recent plans call for the US 31 freeway to be curved west from its original alignment to intersect I-94 at the Biz 94 interchange east of Benton Harbor (the interchange immediately west of the I-196 divergence); a full cloverleaf with C/D lanes on I-94 is planned.
To expand a bit on the Indiana segments. The segment between US 30 at Plymouth and US 24 at Peru doesn't really get enough traffic to justify the expense of upgrading to full freeway. The only real reason to do it would be to get an interstate designation. The segment between US 24 at Peru and US 35 at Kokomo and the segment between IN 26 at Kokomo and IN 38 at Noblesville get enough traffic and have several stoplights so they could warrant upgrading.
And really once you get north of the truck stop just north of 24, there really aren't many stoplights or drives between there and 30. I believe that segment was upgraded 30ish years ago, bypassing Rochester and some smaller towns to the north. It's a pretty easy drive. I would love for the rest of 31 between Indy and 24 to be upgraded, though. Especially between Kokomo and Indy. The few remaining lights and the RxR crossing are getting dangerous with people coming off of the new segments at higher speeds.
I'd agree that upgrading the portion between US-24 and US-30 isn't currently justified, though these factors will pressure INDOT to upgrade to a full freeway
eventually:
- There's a strong political will in north central Indiana to have full freeway access to Indianapolis and downstate politicians have supported it as a long-term goal. Unlike in many areas, folks aren't clamoring for an interstate designation, but they do want a freeway. (The interstate jones may be satisfied by the ITR.) Once I-69 is finished between Evansville and Indy, the heat may be turned up further. "It's our turn now."
- Although there is not a huge volume of cross traffic, what traffic there is represents some serious safety hazards. Drivers used to going 70 or so on the freeway portions of 31 aren't inclined to slow down much on the non-freeway part (speed limit 60). It seems that speeds have creeped up on the non-freeway portions since the new freeway sections have opened. Inevitably, there will be nasty accidents that will fuel the call for the upgrade.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 03:40:05 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 03:26:32 PM
The gap at Napier Road looks like it could be filled in just fine going north through the fields then curving to the east to get around some houses and properties then straight into I-196.
That was the original plan until those fields were found to contain a rare species of butterfly or something like that. The last 30 years or so have been spent trying to find and fund an alternative.
They'll figure out how to never get that gap complete, just leave it to MDOT to come up with a stupid reason not to do something.
I'm sure it was reported in some thread that I can't find right now that the connection to I-94 at Business 94 was officially selected as THE route. Of course the only trick now is finding the money, which has proven so difficult so often for MDOT.
Quote from: bmeiser on May 03, 2018, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 03, 2018, 09:04:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2018, 05:04:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 03, 2018, 01:33:37 AM
Has the bypass around Kokomo been completed yet? If so wouldn't that make US-31 a full freeway between Benton Harbor and I-465? I have never used US-31 between South Bend and Indy. I was looking at the gap between Napier and I-196 thinking that could easily become I-67 if that number ever got used. I think between Grand Rapids and Indy is the best case for an I-67.
There are 3 separate portions of US 31 between Indianapolis and the MI state line that are full freeway (if not fully Interstate-grade): I-465 to IN 38, the Kokomo bypass, and US 30 to the state line (which requires a loop TOTSO NB and a single-lane ramp SB from the US 20 freeway south of South Bend). The remainder is expressway or conventional 4-lane divided rural highway; quite a bit would need to be upgraded to achieve Interstate status.
Once in MI, there's the Napier gap between the north end of the US 31 freeway and I-94 at or near the I-196 junction. A direct-feed (north US 31 to north I-196 and vice-versa) interchange was originally planned, but that ran afoul of environmental concerns regarding a waterway just south of the present 94/196 interchange. The most recent plans call for the US 31 freeway to be curved west from its original alignment to intersect I-94 at the Biz 94 interchange east of Benton Harbor (the interchange immediately west of the I-196 divergence); a full cloverleaf with C/D lanes on I-94 is planned.
To expand a bit on the Indiana segments. The segment between US 30 at Plymouth and US 24 at Peru doesn't really get enough traffic to justify the expense of upgrading to full freeway. The only real reason to do it would be to get an interstate designation. The segment between US 24 at Peru and US 35 at Kokomo and the segment between IN 26 at Kokomo and IN 38 at Noblesville get enough traffic and have several stoplights so they could warrant upgrading.
And really once you get north of the truck stop just north of 24, there really aren't many stoplights or drives between there and 30. I believe that segment was upgraded 30ish years ago, bypassing Rochester and some smaller towns to the north. It's a pretty easy drive. I would love for the rest of 31 between Indy and 24 to be upgraded, though. Especially between Kokomo and Indy. The few remaining lights and the RxR crossing are getting dangerous with people coming off of the new segments at higher speeds.
that RR xing near division road will be removed soon, they are currently designing a bridge to replace the at grade xing.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on May 02, 2018, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 23, 2017, 03:46:10 PM
I think we can forget about an Interstate 67 being built anytime soon, if ever.
People can't be satisfied to leave well enough alone. (Paywall alert)
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/hope-still-remains-for-i--project/article_9d99f641-819c-5210-a670-b28b9722aa12.html
The gist is this: Dubois and Spencer counties, plus the cities of Huntingburg and Jasper, are ponying up half the cost of a highway feasibility study (the rest of the $3.5 million will come from unnamed area companies), thanks to a new Indiana law passed in 2017 that allows local development authorities to qualify for federal highway funds.
And of course Owensboro, which is getting an Interstate (I-165) thanks to the conversion of the Natcher Parkway, wants in.
"Owensboro's not on the beaten path," said Mayor McCheese Tom Watson, a man apparently oblivious to the fact that I-165 is coming. "Our four-lane highway is the Ohio River, and it's been that way for years. But that won't cut it much longer if you're trying to make the city a destination and a distribution point for companies. If you want those visitors and you want those jobs, you need an interstate."
I can see upgrading 231 in Dubois and Martin counties (yes, bypass Jasper and H'burg), and 50 from Loogootee to Washington as a connector, but drop the Interstate idea. There are better ways to spend a buck.
But what do I know?
Owensboro needs to look no farther than Huntsville. A much larger city that is prospering just fine with only one 3-di connecting its city to mainline I-65, about 20 miles away. Owensboro is on track to get two of these. As someone else suggested, if they want to get both of these combined into a single, I-63, linking Evansville with Bowling Green, then fine..although I really don't see where that would be any more beneficial than the two 3-di's that are planned. Either way, stop it there.
From the Indiana side, I can't see a whole lot of thirst to do anything other than improve US 231 to four lane. When that is completed, it would still have considerably less traffic than other grade level, four lane routes in Indiana. I can think of at least three upgrades INDOT would be more interested in before ever considering building an interstate to link Loogootee to Owensboro;
US 31 between Indianapolis and South Bend. I-67 south of Indy does not need to happen for this.
US 41 between Evansville, Terre Haute and Chicago. Linking much larger cities, and providing traffic relief to I-65 between Chicago and Nashville.
US 30 between Chicago and Ft. Wayne. Again, much larger cities and traffic counts.
I would even think some type of upgrade on US 27 south of Ft Wayne down through eastern Indiana would be more beneficial, giving Richmond, Muncie and Ft. Wayne good access to Cincinnati and points south.
IMO, Owensboro would be much better served by taking the two 3-di's, and start to actually work with Evansville and Henderson on regional development. The city leaders have a long history of treating both Evansville and Henderson as competitors and working against them than ever as a regional partner. I think it is the actions of their leaders, rather than interstate numbers that make them appear isolated.
Making a direct comparison between Huntsville, AL and Owensboro might not be valid -- Huntsville is a growing city bolstered by the aerospace and electronics industries; it's was growing prior to the 1968 commissioning of I-565. Owensboro, OTOH, is a classic "rust belt" story; its major industry, the GE assembly plant, closed down in 1986; it's been a bit of a struggle for the town ever since. So there's a bit of a deperate cry for help going on here; whether we forum members think that there's a case for Interstate-related economic enhancement or not, it's apparent some parties in Owensboro think precisely that. So whether the situation produces two discrete 3di's, or the composite Natcher/Audubon corridor is combined into a single 2di, some signage effort is going to happen in the not-too-distant future. To that end, IMO, I'd let them make a case for whatever option they select -- at least it would give them the opportunity to actually participate in the decisions that affect them -- which may help to put to rest the "pie-in-the-sky" plans like an I-67 into southern Indiana that will likely not come to fruition. They have the corridors; they may as well have the chance to optimize them as far as designation is concerned.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on May 02, 2018, 01:24:04 PM
I can see upgrading 231 in Dubois and Martin counties (yes, bypass Jasper and H'burg), and 50 from Loogootee to Washington as a connector, but drop the Interstate idea. There are better ways to spend a buck.
But what do I know?
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 06, 2018, 12:07:40 PM
From the Indiana side, I can't see a whole lot of thirst to do anything other than improve US 231 to four lane. When that is completed, it would still have considerably less traffic than other grade level, four lane routes in Indiana. I can think of at least three upgrades INDOT would be more interested in before ever considering building an interstate to link Loogootee to Owensboro;
First, I'll agree the I67 discussion is too much.
I'll agree Huntingburg and Jasper need to be bypassed, and this does not need to be "I67".
The more debatable point, since it is local to me, is what happens north of Jasper. I'm sure Jasper residents would like an improved connection to I69, but should it swerve towards US41 (Vincennes/points north), or more directly towards Indianapolis?
If US41 is the objective, this would suggest a western Jasper bypass, add some miles to the route to Indianapolis and likely require new terrain road across SE Davies Co.
If US41 is not an objective, a more direct route improving US231 should be proposed.
Personally, I'm too close to have an unbiased view, but I've never really seen a good comparison between the two objectives.
Being local to the area, I know folks in Bloomington would consider US231/Natcher for points south of Bowling Green KY if US231 were improved. But the connector between Jasper and Washington would not tempt them to drive through Owensboro over Evansville.
Although the terrain is more difficult, I have always thought about swinging a four lane connector from Jasper NE and bypassing French Lick and Paoli, and then attaching to IN-37 and heading north to hook into the four lane at Mitchell and then with I-69. I'm not stating interstate type road, but 4 lane. (If they wanted to do an interstate to Jasper, that's fine, just pull out the used I-164 signs they took down at Evansville). The 4 lane would give the Dubois County area a connector to Indianapolis and Bloomington (they are mostly IU fans there), help to open up the northern side of the Patoka Lake area, give additional access to the French Lick/West Baden Springs/Paoli entertainment area from the south as well as from the north. This would complete one middle area corridor in Southern Indiana. Leaving the US 50 corridor in Southern Indiana, the US-27/IN-101 corridor in Eastern Indiana, and US-231 in Central Indiana as potential 4 lane corridors. (Yep, I made some of those up)
How about we move discussion of Interstate 67 to Fictional Highways (I think that is the only place that the Interstate 67 designation will see the light of day anyway)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2018, 06:48:48 PM
How about we move discussion of Interstate 67 to Fictional Highways (I think that is the only place that the Interstate 67 designation will see the light of day anyway)?
I agree, I don't see how this is even getting serious attention, I don't even think INDOT cares. they're to busy with 69, 31, 65, and the north split.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 15, 2018, 07:34:07 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2018, 06:48:48 PM
How about we move discussion of Interstate 67 to Fictional Highways (I think that is the only place that the Interstate 67 designation will see the light of day anyway)?
I agree, I don't see how this is even getting serious attention, I don't even think INDOT cares. they're to busy with 69, 31, 65, and the north split.
Although the US 31 corridor is the most logical choice for I-67, and I've proposed it as such in the past...however, I do agree that we'll most likely never see it in our lifetimes (well, those over 40 anyway).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2018, 06:48:48 PM
How about we move discussion of Interstate 67 to Fictional Highways (I think that is the only place that the Interstate 67 designation will see the light of day anyway)?
It's an actual proposed highway by INDOT... that's why it's here.
Quote from: Henry on May 15, 2018, 09:50:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 15, 2018, 07:34:07 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2018, 06:48:48 PM
How about we move discussion of Interstate 67 to Fictional Highways (I think that is the only place that the Interstate 67 designation will see the light of day anyway)?
I agree, I don't see how this is even getting serious attention, I don't even think INDOT cares. they're to busy with 69, 31, 65, and the north split.
Although the US 31 corridor is the most logical choice for I-67, and I've proposed it as such in the past...however, I do agree that we'll most likely never see it in our lifetimes (well, those over 40 anyway).
Even though I think it isn't necessary, Indiana is pretty committed to getting the rest of 31 between South Bend and Indy converted to freeway. Now, whether or not they actually get an interstate designation approved is another story, but I think the possibility is real.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on May 16, 2018, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 14, 2018, 06:48:48 PM
How about we move discussion of Interstate 67 to Fictional Highways (I think that is the only place that the Interstate 67 designation will see the light of day anyway)?
It's an actual proposed highway by INDOT... that's why it's here.
I don't think it actually is, the only people talking about it are the cities that want it. INDOT doesn't have any information anywhere that I can find on it.
Here's a couple articles pertaining to this.
https://duboiscountyherald.com/b/work-continues-to-make-midstate-corridor-reality
https://duboiscountyherald.com/b/county-discusses-financing-of-midstate-corridor
"Financing for the feasibility study is documented in a memorandum of understanding that will be proposed to INDOT. The memorandum will also state that INDOT will work to validate the corridor as an actual project, which it has not yet done."
proves my point, this is fictional, it's not even on INDOT's radar as a project at all. I do like the fantasy they have that design could begin in 2024. :-D
I can understand (and support) a bypass of Jasper and Huntingburg, but the rest of this mess ... it's unnecessary.
The most recent map ditches the Jasper-to-Washington link for one that cuts NE to pass through the Hoosier National Forest (HAHAHAHA, yeah, that'll happen) around French Lick/West Baden Springs, then up to Bedford. :pan:
If people are willing to be more realistic, they could satisfy most of their real needs by working with INDOT to identify areas where the existing 231 north of I-64 could be upgraded (passing lanes, intersection improvements, etc.). That would make much more sense.
But I get the impression these people don't much care if it makes sense!
Probably 10 years ago or so, I had emailed the Vincennes district about 231 plans in martin and Dubois counties between Loogootee and Jasper. At that time, the rep stated there had been plans to perform several intersection improvements, with added turn lanes, realigning a couple intersections etc, but that had been scoped back to a simple repave, which that has even yet to occur. If anyone on here has traveled 231 between Loogootee and Jasper the past couple of years, you will know the horrid condition it is in; crumbling pavement and shoulders, dips, etc. The pavement is a mess. I think the last time 231 was repaved was around 1999 or 2000. It is scheduled to be repaved later this year, however.
Quote from: SW Indiana on May 17, 2018, 11:37:25 AM
Probably 10 years ago or so, I had emailed the Vincennes district about 231 plans in martin and Dubois counties between Loogootee and Jasper. At that time, the rep stated there had been plans to perform several intersection improvements, with added turn lanes, realigning a couple intersections etc, but that had been scoped back to a simple repave, which that has even yet to occur. If anyone on here has traveled 231 between Loogootee and Jasper the past couple of years, you will know the horrid condition it is in; crumbling pavement and shoulders, dips, etc. The pavement is a mess. I think the last time 231 was repaved was around 1999 or 2000. It is scheduled to be repaved later this year, however.
I remember that. Seems like the wheels came off those plans when the I-69 project got accelerated, but I don't remember for sure.
It'd be fantastic if INDOT can push 231 back to the forefront and do some things that would largely fit within the footprint of the existing road. Like this: http://www.modot.org/Shared4-Lane/documents/SharedFourLaneBrochure.pdf
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on May 17, 2018, 11:21:38 PM
Quote from: SW Indiana on May 17, 2018, 11:37:25 AM
Probably 10 years ago or so, I had emailed the Vincennes district about 231 plans in martin and Dubois counties between Loogootee and Jasper. At that time, the rep stated there had been plans to perform several intersection improvements, with added turn lanes, realigning a couple intersections etc, but that had been scoped back to a simple repave, which that has even yet to occur. If anyone on here has traveled 231 between Loogootee and Jasper the past couple of years, you will know the horrid condition it is in; crumbling pavement and shoulders, dips, etc. The pavement is a mess. I think the last time 231 was repaved was around 1999 or 2000. It is scheduled to be repaved later this year, however.
I remember that. Seems like the wheels came off those plans when the I-69 project got accelerated, but I don't remember for sure.
It'd be fantastic if INDOT can push 231 back to the forefront and do some things that would largely fit within the footprint of the existing road. Like this: http://www.modot.org/Shared4-Lane/documents/SharedFourLaneBrochure.pdf
I have also heard I-69 sucked up all the available money for about 10 years, but I'm still happy it was built.
The Shared4-Lane looks interesting. But the current footprint for 231 is tight in many places and wouldn't really support that any easier than just selectively adding (as many as possible) extra lanes with normal merge points.
And, looking further up the thread, I agree "I-67" is in many ways a fictional title. There is, however, a reasonable discussion to be had about improving the Owensboro/ Rockport/ Dale/ Huntingburg/ Jasper/ "what-ever" corridor toward the north.
Quote from: andy on May 22, 2018, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on May 17, 2018, 11:21:38 PM
Quote from: SW Indiana on May 17, 2018, 11:37:25 AM
Probably 10 years ago or so, I had emailed the Vincennes district about 231 plans in martin and Dubois counties between Loogootee and Jasper. At that time, the rep stated there had been plans to perform several intersection improvements, with added turn lanes, realigning a couple intersections etc, but that had been scoped back to a simple repave, which that has even yet to occur. If anyone on here has traveled 231 between Loogootee and Jasper the past couple of years, you will know the horrid condition it is in; crumbling pavement and shoulders, dips, etc. The pavement is a mess. I think the last time 231 was repaved was around 1999 or 2000. It is scheduled to be repaved later this year, however.
I remember that. Seems like the wheels came off those plans when the I-69 project got accelerated, but I don't remember for sure.
It'd be fantastic if INDOT can push 231 back to the forefront and do some things that would largely fit within the footprint of the existing road. Like this: http://www.modot.org/Shared4-Lane/documents/SharedFourLaneBrochure.pdf
I have also heard I-69 sucked up all the available money for about 10 years, but I'm still happy it was built.
The Shared4-Lane looks interesting. But the current footprint for 231 is tight in many places and wouldn't really support that any easier than just selectively adding (as many as possible) extra lanes with normal merge points.
And, looking further up the thread, I agree "I-67" is in many ways a fictional title. There is, however, a reasonable discussion to be had about improving the Owensboro/ Rockport/ Dale/ Huntingburg/ Jasper/ "what-ever" corridor toward the north.
SR 67/US 231 is like this around the spencer area. also, INDOT has long wanted to completely bypass those cities and continue the divided highway north of 64. That's all that's needed, a 4 lane divided highway from 64 to 69.
I would concur with the opinion that 231 could use a bypass around the Jasper/Huntingburg area. Jasper especially is a pretty bad slowdown along that route. Just separating the local and long distance traffic would do a lot. I would also concur with the opinion that a full interstate would be overkill. The divided section starting at Dale works perfectly well for the traffic it sees.
Still not a fan of "I-67" generally, but there is an interesting new proposed routing in southern Indiana.
From https://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=111&ArticleID=91953 (https://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=111&ArticleID=91953) (4/24/2018)
The article still focuses on a north or north/west corridor, but the picture in the corner of the article is new;
https://c3b74fa927ed6538c5b7-932d758ce7adb10decf1238c99d0d259.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/98b9475ea2391f514e6c6643a36d79cf.pdf (https://c3b74fa927ed6538c5b7-932d758ce7adb10decf1238c99d0d259.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/98b9475ea2391f514e6c6643a36d79cf.pdf)
This proposal swings north/east from the north side of Jasper, approaches French Lick, and meets SR37 on the north side of Mitchell.
The most surprising thing to me is this is barely more than 30 miles. Current drive time from Mitchell to Jasper is a full hour and would presumably be cut in half.
It would help the Casino in French Lick with access from the north (Bloomington and Indianapolis) which would be a source of political support.
Seems to me this routing would provide more economic potential than linking to Washington or Crane.
I still think, instead of an interstate, a minimal access four lane like the current SR37 between Bloomington and Mitchell would be adequate.
In fact I think the interstate is overkill and a well managed (60 MPH, no or few stop lights) four lane would actually provide more economic potential.
The proposal also upgrades US231 south of Dale and SR37 north of Mitchell to full interstate, but I don't care at all about that.
One final thought, the Natcher bridge over the Ohio is not tolled and as proposed, I-67 could draw traffic away from both I-65 and I-69.
There is already a back country road route that is roughly where that proposal goes between Mitchell and French Lick...I have family that lives on it!
Locals already know it shaves a good 10-20 minutes, vs using US 150 and IN 37 thru Paoli to make the connection from French Lick to Mitchell/IN 37 and Points North. You can tell by local increased local country road traffic in the before work mornings and after work evenings
Is a full interstate needed on this corridor? Debatable.
Had I-64 taken its original US 50 (IL)/US 150 (IN) route between STL and Louisville, French Lick would already have an East-West Interstate. But since that did not happen, perhaps a North-South is warranted?
Overall, if this Owensboro to Bloomington Interstate is viable, even with nearby and new I-69, then the Southern IL I-24 Marion to STL Extension has to be viable as well
Looks like this proposal is simply a "connect-the-dots" mimicking of the I-69 segment south of Bloomington, except serving other towns to the east, with the new section connecting to the expressway section of US 231 south of I-64, including the Natcher Bridge into KY. While the idea of proving improved access from the IN 37 corridor south of Bloomington to an existing high-capacity Ohio River crossing isn't totally without merit (and it is more useful than previous corridors extending straight up US 231 to I-69), a new-terrain connector through territory equally as difficult as that along I-69 would probably not be a financially viable venture in the foreseeable future. Chances are that any further freeway construction will be based on upgrades to existing arterials or expressways such as US 31 north of Indy, or possibly the Hoosier Heartland E-W corridor -- simply for purposes of cost containment. The only readily "convertible" part of the corridor as shown is US 231 from the Ohio River north to I-64; IN 37 is largely a "basic" rural facility with unfettered access points; like the stretch north of Bloomington now becoming part of I-69, it would require extensive relocation or truncation of access points plus numerous grade separations -- and that is a very costly undertaking. I don't see INDOT embarking on a second large-scale project in this region anytime soon.
let them waste their time, INDOT isn't going to build this. US 31, US 30, I-69, plus widening 65 and 70 are light years more important than this. I'd even put finishing 469 as a better idea than is (and finishing 469 isn't something that's being considered anymore)
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2018, 08:21:17 AM
let them waste their time, INDOT isn't going to build this. US 31, US 30, I-69, plus widening 65 and 70 are light years more important than this. I'd even put finishing 469 as a better idea than is (and finishing 469 isn't something that's being considered anymore)
Likely true. Even as a fictional highway proposal, it is more interesting than going to Washington or Crane.
What exactly is "finishing 469," I'm kind of curious. Is it a beltway around the west and south sides of Fort Wayne, or extending it US 24 via Lafayette Center Road?
Back on topic, I agree that I-69 and its construction will be it for a while, other than a proper Jasper/Huntingburg bypass. Owensboro is just going to have to get over the fact that they are not greatly located, it's why Indy's the Crossroads of America and they aren't.
Quote from: tdindy88 on July 31, 2018, 08:47:55 PM
What exactly is "finishing 469," I'm kind of curious. Is it a beltway around the west and south sides of Fort Wayne, or extending it US 24 via Lafayette Center Road?
Back on topic, I agree that I-69 and its construction will be it for a while, other than a proper Jasper/Huntingburg bypass. Owensboro is just going to have to get over the fact that they are not greatly located, it's why Indy's the Crossroads of America and they aren't.
469 was originally supposed to be a full circle, the portion west of 69 never got built, don't even think they even had concept drawings for that section. this will never be finished, no reason to.
Building through French Lick would devastate the natural environment. Section 4 of I-69 was bad enough. We need to protect what remains of forested areas in Indiana.
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2018, 04:05:28 AM
Looks like this proposal is simply a "connect-the-dots" mimicking of the I-69 segment south of Bloomington, except serving other towns to the east, with the new section connecting to the expressway section of US 231 south of I-64, including the Natcher Bridge into KY. While the idea of proving improved access from the IN 37 corridor south of Bloomington to an existing high-capacity Ohio River crossing isn't totally without merit (and it is more useful than previous corridors extending straight up US 231 to I-69), a new-terrain connector through territory equally as difficult as that along I-69 would probably not be a financially viable venture in the foreseeable future. Chances are that any further freeway construction will be based on upgrades to existing arterials or expressways such as US 31 north of Indy, or possibly the Hoosier Heartland E-W corridor -- simply for purposes of cost containment. The only readily "convertible" part of the corridor as shown is US 231 from the Ohio River north to I-64; IN 37 is largely a "basic" rural facility with unfettered access points; like the stretch north of Bloomington now becoming part of I-69, it would require extensive relocation or truncation of access points plus numerous grade separations -- and that is a very costly undertaking. I don't see INDOT embarking on a second large-scale project in this region anytime soon.
Agreed. IN 37 south of Bloomington would probably be even more of a headache then Bloomington and points north since the terrain is a lot rougher and the new-terrain connector would be challenging.
I think the only thing that makes logical sense is to work towards making US 231 four-lanes to Jasper, since that would stop the whining from them over losing out on I-69.
Quote from: thefro on August 01, 2018, 03:48:25 PM
I think the only thing that makes logical sense is to work towards making US 231 four-lanes to Jasper, since that would stop the whining from them over losing out on I-69.
What would be appropriate for the US 231 corridor is a "classic" upper-Midwest expressway arrangement: a controlled-access expressway in the rural sections, with freeway bypasses of Huntingburg, Jasper, and Logootee, and extending between the existing expressway end at I-64 and I-69 to the north. That would provide a through commercial corridor with much less cost that a combination of new-terrain freeway and a similar facility south on 231.
Looks like Jasper is getting serious about the Mid-State corridor: https://duboiscountyherald.com/b/jasper-commits-14m-for-midstate-corridor-study
(https://duboiscountyherald.com/b/jasper-commits-14m-for-midstate-corridor-study)
what a waste of money for an interstate. but it looks like it may be for a simple divided highway, that's a good idea.
I don't know how long this article will remain free on the Bloomington H-T website. The article basically states that INDOT approved of an Environmental Study for the Mid-State corridor.
https://www.hoosiertimes.com/springs_valley_herald/environmental-study-to-start-for-highway/article_deb61ea3-99f3-56d4-8d77-b48a218aca14.html
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on October 16, 2018, 10:06:34 PM
I don't know how long this article will remain free on the Bloomington H-T website. The article basically states that INDOT approved of an Environmental Study for the Mid-State corridor.
https://www.hoosiertimes.com/springs_valley_herald/environmental-study-to-start-for-highway/article_deb61ea3-99f3-56d4-8d77-b48a218aca14.html
For another take on the EIS study, an Owensboro paper has an article which is not satisfied that this is (directly) supportive of an I-67;
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/midstate-corridor-project-gets-study/article_766ceda6-056c-5475-aaf0-4e85f686064f.html (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/midstate-corridor-project-gets-study/article_766ceda6-056c-5475-aaf0-4e85f686064f.html)
QuoteAccording to IDOT, only an unpaved portion of highway between I-69 and I-64 through Jasper and Huntingburg in Indiana will be part of a three-year Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement needed to apply federal funds to any future project.
I'll admit I don't know what "unpaved portion" means.
The article further claims this means US231 between I-64 and Owensboro will not be considered for upgrade to an interstate and;
QuoteThat's been Mayor Tom Watson's concern for a while. He has said interstate improvements in Evansville and Henderson and between Louisville and Bowling Green leave Owensboro on a cul-de-sac. The Midstate Corridor is, or was, the only proposed project that could put an end to that.
How sad...
Would that also exclude an upgrade of SR 37 between Mitchell and Bloomington?
Of course I could be giving the article too much credibility.
Does anyone have the actual traffic counts of US 231 between Owensboro and I-64? It has to be the lightest amount of traffic by a considerable amount of any divided US highway in the state. I would guess that most divided state routes are also higher. In it's current condition, it is over built and perfectly adequate.
The root of all of this is so a town of 50K people in Kentucky can have a 2-di interstate highway. With that in mind, why doesn't Owensboro just push for the Natcher and Audubon parkways to be combined into a single 2-di, connecting Bowling Green to Henderson? This would be far more likely to get done, and IMO, would be more beneficial and millions cheaper.
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 18, 2018, 10:43:39 AM
Does anyone have the actual traffic counts of US 231 between Owensboro and I-64? It has to be the lightest amount of traffic by a considerable amount of any divided US highway in the state. I would guess that most divided state routes are also higher. In it's current condition, it is over built and perfectly adequate.
INDOT has a database on their website. As of 2017, it's as high as 8,400 just north of the Ohio River, drops to 6,000 just south of SR 162 (Santa Claus) and goes back to 7,500 as you get closer to I-64. I agree, the current condition is adequate, especially since there aren't any stoplights.
For comparison, I-69 just north of US 50 is 7,000 as of 2017.
Quote from: SW Indiana on October 18, 2018, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Captain Jack on October 18, 2018, 10:43:39 AM
Does anyone have the actual traffic counts of US 231 between Owensboro and I-64? It has to be the lightest amount of traffic by a considerable amount of any divided US highway in the state. I would guess that most divided state routes are also higher. In it's current condition, it is over built and perfectly adequate.
INDOT has a database on their website. As of 2017, it's as high as 8,400 just north of the Ohio River, drops to 6,000 just south of SR 162 (Santa Claus) and goes back to 7,500 as you get closer to I-64. I agree, the current condition is adequate, especially since there aren't any stoplights.
For comparison, I-69 just north of US 50 is 7,000 as of 2017.
231 traffic has just about doubled since the year it opened. More in some areas (Rockport-Owensboro and from 162 to 64), less in others. I didn't really expect to see as much traffic as I do.
That being said, there are better ways of serving the traffic north of I-64 than building a full four-lane. That might be a viable concept to bypass Jasper and Huntingburg, but a shared four-lane concept within the existing footprint would work outside of that area.
Quote from: andy on October 17, 2018, 08:51:37 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on October 16, 2018, 10:06:34 PM
I don't know how long this article will remain free on the Bloomington H-T website. The article basically states that INDOT approved of an Environmental Study for the Mid-State corridor.
https://www.hoosiertimes.com/springs_valley_herald/environmental-study-to-start-for-highway/article_deb61ea3-99f3-56d4-8d77-b48a218aca14.html
For another take on the EIS study, an Owensboro paper has an article which is not satisfied that this is (directly) supportive of an I-67;
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/midstate-corridor-project-gets-study/article_766ceda6-056c-5475-aaf0-4e85f686064f.html (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/midstate-corridor-project-gets-study/article_766ceda6-056c-5475-aaf0-4e85f686064f.html)
QuoteAccording to IDOT, only an unpaved portion of highway between I-69 and I-64 through Jasper and Huntingburg in Indiana will be part of a three-year Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement needed to apply federal funds to any future project.
I'll admit I don't know what "unpaved portion" means.
The article further claims this means US231 between I-64 and Owensboro will not be considered for upgrade to an interstate and;
QuoteThat's been Mayor Tom Watson's concern for a while. He has said interstate improvements in Evansville and Henderson and between Louisville and Bowling Green leave Owensboro on a cul-de-sac. The Midstate Corridor is, or was, the only proposed project that could put an end to that.
How sad...
Would that also exclude an upgrade of SR 37 between Mitchell and Bloomington?
Of course I could be giving the article too much credibility.
Oh, boo hoo. "What can Indiana do for Owensboro," that's what Tom Watson wants to know. Good Lord.
231 traffic has just about doubled since the year it opened. More in some areas (Rockport-Owensboro and from 162 to 64), less in others. I didn't really expect to see as much traffic as I do.
That being said, there are better ways of serving the traffic north of I-64 than building a full four-lane. That might be a viable concept to bypass Jasper and Huntingburg, but a shared four-lane concept within the existing footprint would work outside of that area.
[/quote]
Yup. i think a four lane bypass through dubois would be sufficient, perhaps an interchange instead of where a stoplight would be required, and north of there, upgrade 231 to a super-two or whatnot, and possibly construct same passing lanes where feasible.
huntingburg and jasper should be bypassed, a 2 lane one would likely be fine. and building a 2 digit interstate in that area of kentucky is a waste of a number. not every city needs an interstate, they're already wasting money giving tunica mississippi one, there are subdivisions larger than that city.
Quote from: andy on October 17, 2018, 08:51:37 PM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on October 16, 2018, 10:06:34 PM
I don't know how long this article will remain free on the Bloomington H-T website. The article basically states that INDOT approved of an Environmental Study for the Mid-State corridor.
https://www.hoosiertimes.com/springs_valley_herald/environmental-study-to-start-for-highway/article_deb61ea3-99f3-56d4-8d77-b48a218aca14.html
For another take on the EIS study, an Owensboro paper has an article which is not satisfied that this is (directly) supportive of an I-67;
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/midstate-corridor-project-gets-study/article_766ceda6-056c-5475-aaf0-4e85f686064f.html (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/midstate-corridor-project-gets-study/article_766ceda6-056c-5475-aaf0-4e85f686064f.html)
QuoteAccording to IDOT, only an unpaved portion of highway between I-69 and I-64 through Jasper and Huntingburg in Indiana will be part of a three-year Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement needed to apply federal funds to any future project.
I'll admit I don't know what "unpaved portion" means.
The article further claims this means US231 between I-64 and Owensboro will not be considered for upgrade to an interstate and;
QuoteThat's been Mayor Tom Watson's concern for a while. He has said interstate improvements in Evansville and Henderson and between Louisville and Bowling Green leave Owensboro on a cul-de-sac. The Midstate Corridor is, or was, the only proposed project that could put an end to that.
How sad...
Would that also exclude an upgrade of SR 37 between Mitchell and Bloomington?
Of course I could be giving the article too much credibility.
:hmmm: is that paper aware illinois isn't north of owensboro?
I wish all the people who whine about content and errors in the Evansville Courier & Press could see the "Messy Ink."
Must be something in the Owensboro City Hall water that makes mayors go positively bazonkers about getting an Interstate corridor through town. And they always manage to drag Indiana into the mix -- ignoring the old adage about leading a horse to water! No IN official entity is going to prioritize a new Interstate along US 231 south of Crane; maybe down the line the portion from I-64 down to the Ohio River bridge may well be upgraded to a freeway -- but doing the other 50-odd miles to similar standards just isn't in the cards.
Watson (and predecessor Payne, for that matter) have always needed to face reality and stick to jurisdictions where they might just be able to wield a bit of influence -- within their own state. IN has much bigger fish to fry (e.g. I-69 section 6) these days.
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2018, 01:36:51 AM
Must be something in the Owensboro City Hall water that makes mayors go positively bazonkers about getting an Interstate corridor through town. And they always manage to drag Indiana into the mix -- ignoring the old adage about leading a horse to water! No IN official entity is going to prioritize a new Interstate along US 231 south of Crane; maybe down the line the portion from I-64 down to the Ohio River bridge may well be upgraded to a freeway -- but doing the other 50-odd miles to similar standards just isn't in the cards.
Watson (and predecessor Payne, for that matter) have always needed to face reality and stick to jurisdictions where they might just be able to wield a bit of influence -- within their own state. IN has much bigger fish to fry (e.g. I-69 section 6) these days.
Even though the road is already divided and 4 lanes, it would still cost quite a bit to convert 231 south of 64 to freeway and would be an incredible waste of money. If Owensboro wants it, let Owensboro pay for it. Indiana needs to finish the last section of I-69 and continue 6-laning 65 and 70.
Last available traffic count for US 231 between US 60 and the river is just short of 5,700, with 31 percent of that being truck traffic.
South of the US 231/US 60 intersection, it jumps to 10,000 VPD but the truck percentage drops to 24 percent.
West of the KY 144 interchange, the count is more than 36,000. It drops to 31,000 just prior to the Natcher interchange, then jumps to 35,200 west of the Natcher.
The Natcher Parkway is going to become an x65, so Owensboro's going to get its interstate. And once upon a time, the Audubon was going to be an x69, but those signs have been absent from the Audubon for several years.
If I-67 gets designated anywhere, I think it should be along US 31 north of Indianapolis.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on October 19, 2018, 12:23:48 PM
If I-67 gets designated anywhere, I think it should be along US 31 north of Indianapolis.
As I iterated over in the "what new I-numbers will be used" thread in General, the prospects for I-67 over US 31 north of Indy will increase as sections of US 31 are upgraded; eventually there will be short segments of interim conventional highway between the upgraded segments -- and the concept of "finishing it off" will likely be tied to an Interstate designation (perhaps, if recent history is any indication, through a new Congressionally-designated HPC with I-67 attached). But with the current rate of upgrades, don't look for that to happen in the near term; right now, the incremental approach is what will continue.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:49:39 AM
Last available traffic count for US 231 between US 60 and the river is just short of 5,700, with 31 percent of that being truck traffic.
South of the US 231/US 60 intersection, it jumps to 10,000 VPD but the truck percentage drops to 24 percent.
West of the KY 144 interchange, the count is more than 36,000. It drops to 31,000 just prior to the Natcher interchange, then jumps to 35,200 west of the Natcher.
The Natcher Parkway is going to become an x65, so Owensboro's going to get its interstate. And once upon a time, the Audubon was going to be an x69, but those signs have been absent from the Audubon for several years.
Is that 5700 still the number from 2012? If so, I would make the case for it being a good 30-50% higher than that now. Obviously KSP sees something out there that they like, given the number of traffic stops I see each week. Of course, the ridiculous 55 speed limit has more than a little to do with that.
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 19, 2018, 08:04:34 AM
Even though the road is already divided and 4 lanes, it would still cost quite a bit to convert 231 south of 64 to freeway and would be an incredible waste of money. If Owensboro wants it, let Owensboro pay for it. Indiana needs to finish the last section of I-69 and continue 6-laning 65 and 70.
Actually, that portion of 231 looks like it was always intended to eventually be a full freeway; there's no private access save for the coal plant (which is large enough to get its own interchange anyway); the frontage roads are bowed out at the crossroads to make room for diamond ramps, and the parclo at I-64 is set up to eventually be built out as a full cloverleaf. Looks like INDOT has future plans for that segment. Nevertheless, if I were mayor of Owensboro, I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those plans to materialize.
Quote from: sparker on October 20, 2018, 12:14:46 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 19, 2018, 08:04:34 AM
Even though the road is already divided and 4 lanes, it would still cost quite a bit to convert 231 south of 64 to freeway and would be an incredible waste of money. If Owensboro wants it, let Owensboro pay for it. Indiana needs to finish the last section of I-69 and continue 6-laning 65 and 70.
Actually, that portion of 231 looks like it was always intended to eventually be a full freeway; there's no private access save for the coal plant (which is large enough to get its own interchange anyway); the frontage roads are bowed out at the crossroads to make room for diamond ramps, and the parclo at I-64 is set up to eventually be built out as a full cloverleaf. Looks like INDOT has future plans for that segment. Nevertheless, if I were mayor of Owensboro, I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those plans to materialize.
Intended, no, but built with sufficient ROW to allow, yes. As for future plans, I've heard none.
As designed, the only interchanges were to be at SR 66 on the south end and I-64 on the north. The SR 162 junction was originally to have been a signalized intersection; North Spencer school officials and parents pressed very hard to get it changed to an interchange. It was a good idea.
Moving the frontage roads was money well spent, as it will save the cost later. That said, I doubt very highly that any of those intersections are turned into interchanges in my lifetime, but hey, you never know.
If I were Mayor Watson, I'd bag this nonsense and go hat in hand to KYTC and push to extend I-165 around US 60 and then west along the Audubon. He wants a connection to I-69? There. "Go west, young man."
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 20, 2018, 02:25:08 AM
If I were Mayor Watson, I'd bag this nonsense and go hat in hand to KYTC and push to extend I-165 around US 60 and then west along the Audubon. He wants a connection to I-69? There. "Go west, young man."
There's an old adage: intelligent people
start with the obvious (implying that if that doesn't work, move on to something else). The fact that Watson (and his predecessor) couldn't see what's right on their doorstep says a lot about their ability to focus (or lack thereof!).
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on October 19, 2018, 10:43:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:49:39 AM
Last available traffic count for US 231 between US 60 and the river is just short of 5,700, with 31 percent of that being truck traffic.
South of the US 231/US 60 intersection, it jumps to 10,000 VPD but the truck percentage drops to 24 percent.
West of the KY 144 interchange, the count is more than 36,000. It drops to 31,000 just prior to the Natcher interchange, then jumps to 35,200 west of the Natcher.
The Natcher Parkway is going to become an x65, so Owensboro's going to get its interstate. And once upon a time, the Audubon was going to be an x69, but those signs have been absent from the Audubon for several years.
Is that 5700 still the number from 2012? If so, I would make the case for it being a good 30-50% higher than that now. Obviously KSP sees something out there that they like, given the number of traffic stops I see each week. Of course, the ridiculous 55 speed limit has more than a little to do with that.
I guess. I'm surprised the numbers shown on the traffic counts page for that particular station aren't more recent. I have access to a traffic count app on my desktop at work but think it may use even older data than what's on the map page. If I can remember, I'll check on Monday.
Some surface four-lanes in Kentucky have been upped to 65 mph, but best I can remember, even the freeway portion of US 60 is signed for 55, so I doubt anything in Daviess County other than the parkways will ever be posted for more than double nickels.
The speed limit on the freeway section (from KY 331/US 60 W around to Hawes Blvd, so roughly a 12 1/2 mile stretch) was raised to 65 MPH a couple of years ago. The limit drops to 55 going eastbound at the bottom of a hill. It's ticket heaven for KSP.
(Edited to eliminate the excessive quotes. Couldn't do that on my phone ... sorry.)
It's quite simple why we keep hearing this noise out of Owensboro. Because it worked for Evansville.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 30, 2018, 09:08:54 AM
It's quite simple why we keep hearing this noise out of Owensboro. Because it worked for Evansville.
As long as the mayor and others in Owensboro keep their requests to matters that can be dealt with in-state, where they have half a chance of getting results -- and don't go whining to IN about "their part" in any projected corridor up US 231, they may yet be successful. From their rhetoric, it appears they want an Interstate corridor extending
through their area, not simply
to their outskirts and then stopping (i.e., the planned I-165 over the Natcher); hence the reference to their being on a "cul-de-sac" (terminology they did steal from Evansville's complaint about the lack of an Interstate bridge there). Using the Audubon as part of that "through-putting" might be the solution to their problems -- but what is needed is for them not to reject a viable but imperfect solution for a technically superior but politically problematic concept that requires too many "ducks in a row".
Since jnewkirk77 is making a big deal about the increase in traffic on 231, I dug into INDOT's traffic count database. They have hard counts from both 2011 (a good start year since it's the first year the whole corridor from the river to I-64 was 4 lanes) and 2017 at several locations between the river and I-64. Here's a look at select locations:
- North of IN 66: 2011 count 6122, 2017 count 8388, increase of 37%
- North of IN 70: 2011 count 4591, 2017 count 6542, increase of 42%
- North of IN 162: 2011 count 5731, 2017 county 7873, increase of 37%
- South of IN 68: 2011 count 5754, 2017 count 7690, increase of 34%
- South of I-64: 2011 count 9389, 2016* count 9727, increase of 4%
While traffic along most of the corridor has increase noticeably since 4-laning was finished ca. 2011, it barely changed immediately south of I-64. I also took a quick look at 2001 counts, which would date to BEFORE the bridge, and traffic has increased generally in the 60-80% range from that time...not quite the "doubling" that was claimed earlier.
It should also be noted that a few locations saw a slight decrease in traffic between 2016 and 2017...but more interestingly: per INDOT data, traffic volumes on the Ohio River bridge itself actually decreased 25% between 2011 and 2017 (from 10,844 to 8,143 AADT).
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans. it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis. owensboro hits none of those points.
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans. it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis. owensboro hits none of those points.
Like it or not, in this day & age corridors are just as often decided by local shouting accompanied by sheer political will as they are by raw need. Like with I-69 across Southern Arkansas, Owensboro and those with interests in the area feel, well,
bypassed by everyone and everything -- and since the big GE plant there closed down in the late '80's, they're looking to attract they type of business that locates along a trunk Interstate corridor -- possibly those who could also benefit from access to a navigable waterway. While they've been particularly vocal about such things, they're really no different than places like Fresno, CA or San Angelo, TX inasmuch as they're also metro areas that have, to varying degrees of success, sought development of new Interstates through their vicinity. But unlike promoters in the other areas, the Owensboro crowd has repeatedly "banged their head against the wall" regarding IN involvement, particularly since the US 231 bridge was opened.
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:54:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans. it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis. owensboro hits none of those points.
Like it or not, in this day & age corridors are just as often decided by local shouting accompanied by sheer political will as they are by raw need. Like with I-69 across Southern Arkansas, Owensboro and those with interests in the area feel, well, bypassed by everyone and everything -- and since the big GE plant there closed down in the late '80's, they're looking to attract they type of business that locates along a trunk Interstate corridor -- possibly those who could also benefit from access to a navigable waterway. While they've been particularly vocal about such things, they're really no different than places like Fresno, CA or San Angelo, TX inasmuch as they're also metro areas that have, to varying degrees of success, sought development of new Interstates through their vicinity. But unlike promoters in the other areas, the Owensboro crowd has repeatedly "banged their head against the wall" regarding IN involvement, particularly since the US 231 bridge was opened.
honestly, once 69 is complete to memphis, i see no need for any new interstates. most of these proposals are just crazy, with i-14 being the dumbest idea of all. the only exception is north carolina.
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans. it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis. owensboro hits none of those points.
My understanding is that Owensboro is no longer the third-largest city in Kentucky. That distinction now belongs to Bowling Green.
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 31, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
honestly, once 69 is complete to memphis, i see no need for any new interstates. most of these proposals are just crazy, with i-14 being the dumbest idea of all. the only exception is north carolina.
If there was such a thing as a "wayback machine" that could transport us to 1973 in order to undo the Nixon-era "block grant" package that included provisions in Title 23 that transferred impetus for Interstate system additions from the federal to state and local levels (i.e., ensuring that anything like the 1968 batch of "top-down"* additions didn't reoccur), it certainly would be nice. But there isn't; we have to live with the fallout from that functional change. But as long as there are cities and regions lacking Interstate access -- and folks from those areas see the existing corridors attracting businesses and jobs -- there
will be political pressure to designate system additions to do likewise in those areas. It's happened since I-49 in the early '80's; 11 completely new Interstates -- and several extensions and 2nd sections -- have been deployed since. And it's unlikely to cease absent a major recession or worse. Obviously, some corridors are more justifiable than others -- but the present system doesn't discriminate on the basis of worthiness or warrant -- the squeakiest wheels tend to have the most success at their ventures. The previous "top-down" approach that brought us the original Interstate system and its later chargeable additions was turned on its head 45 years ago -- welcome to that world! :-/
....remembered why I inserted the asterisk after "top down" above:
*Even the 1968 additions weren't devoid of their own political manipulation; I-72 was Everett Dirksen's "gift" to his hometown of Decatur, IL; and I-88 was a "make work for your home state" project jointly sponsored by then-Sen. Jake Javits (NY) and, in one of his last legislative efforts, Sen. Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy!
Quote from: froggie on October 30, 2018, 01:35:49 PM
Since jnewkirk77 is making a big deal about the increase in traffic on 231, I dug into INDOT's traffic count database. They have hard counts from both 2011 (a good start year since it's the first year the whole corridor from the river to I-64 was 4 lanes) and 2017 at several locations between the river and I-64. Here's a look at select locations:
- North of IN 66: 2011 count 6122, 2017 count 8388, increase of 37%
- North of IN 70: 2011 count 4591, 2017 count 6542, increase of 42%
- North of IN 162: 2011 count 5731, 2017 county 7873, increase of 37%
- South of IN 68: 2011 count 5754, 2017 count 7690, increase of 34%
- South of I-64: 2011 count 9389, 2016* count 9727, increase of 4%
While traffic along most of the corridor has increase noticeably since 4-laning was finished ca. 2011, it barely changed immediately south of I-64. I also took a quick look at 2001 counts, which would date to BEFORE the bridge, and traffic has increased generally in the 60-80% range from that time...not quite the "doubling" that was claimed earlier.
It should also be noted that a few locations saw a slight decrease in traffic between 2016 and 2017...but more interestingly: per INDOT data, traffic volumes on the Ohio River bridge itself actually decreased 25% between 2011 and 2017 (from 10,844 to 8,143 AADT).
My apologies for making a "big deal" out of it. You'll not have to worry about that any longer.
No need to apologize. You kept pointing it out over a number of posts so I wanted to look at the details.
looks like US 231 will be a divided highway one day up to 69:
https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/columnists/jon-webb/2020/02/24/road-project-could-massively-change-southern-indiana/4831438002/
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 24, 2020, 06:36:57 PM
looks like US 231 will be a divided highway one day up to 69:
https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/columnists/jon-webb/2020/02/24/road-project-could-massively-change-southern-indiana/4831438002/
Take any Jon Webb column with a Cadillac-sized grain of salt. He is bad about making things look far worse than they actually are, and in this one, he conveniently ignores the fact that they are considering the possibility of a Super 2 among the options (others include expressway, freeway, and doing nothing). But hey, anything to stir up something.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 24, 2020, 07:00:01 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 24, 2020, 06:36:57 PM
looks like US 231 will be a divided highway one day up to 69:
https://www.courierpress.com/story/opinion/columnists/jon-webb/2020/02/24/road-project-could-massively-change-southern-indiana/4831438002/
Take any Jon Webb column with a Cadillac-sized grain of salt. He is bad about making things look far worse than they actually are, and in this one, he conveniently ignores the fact that they are considering the possibility of a Super 2 among the options (others include expressway, freeway, and doing nothing). But hey, anything to stir up something.
The 231 route is one of a few seriously being studied routes. See the Mid-states corridor thread for details.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25352.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25352.0)
Preferred route expected to be announced late 2020.
Speculation is that Senator Braun is interested in this being done.
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 31, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2018, 12:54:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
evansville got the interstate because they needed it, it should have been part of the original plans. it is a city of 120k and it's in the top 5 largest in the state, it has a sizeable economy, and it makes sense as a corridor down to memphis. owensboro hits none of those points.
Like it or not, in this day & age corridors are just as often decided by local shouting accompanied by sheer political will as they are by raw need. Like with I-69 across Southern Arkansas, Owensboro and those with interests in the area feel, well, bypassed by everyone and everything -- and since the big GE plant there closed down in the late '80's, they're looking to attract they type of business that locates along a trunk Interstate corridor -- possibly those who could also benefit from access to a navigable waterway. While they've been particularly vocal about such things, they're really no different than places like Fresno, CA or San Angelo, TX inasmuch as they're also metro areas that have, to varying degrees of success, sought development of new Interstates through their vicinity. But unlike promoters in the other areas, the Owensboro crowd has repeatedly "banged their head against the wall" regarding IN involvement, particularly since the US 231 bridge was opened.
honestly, once 69 is complete to memphis, i see no need for any new interstates. most of these proposals are just crazy, with i-14 being the dumbest idea of all. the only exception is north carolina.
As the US population continues its long going shift from the NE to the SW, the need for additional capacity will be identified in some fashion, well after our lifetimes.
I agree that for the most part the connectivity in place today serves us pretty well. But where the people go, the business goes. Where the business goes, trucks go. And where trucks go, roads are built.
And I agree, I-14 is silly.
Even if US 231 along that corridor is expanded to four lanes, I doubt it would become a freeway (let alone an Interstate 67). It would likely be a four lane highway with at-grade intersections and access to homes and businesses along the corridor.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:55:54 PM
Even if US 231 along that corridor is expanded to four lanes, I doubt it would become a freeway (let alone an Interstate 67). It would likely be a four lane highway with at-grade intersections and access to homes and businesses along the corridor.
If the project from Owensboro to I-64 was any indication, it will be built on a new-location limited-access right of way, only permitting at-grade intersections at public roadway crossings.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:55:54 PM
Even if US 231 along that corridor is expanded to four lanes, I doubt it would become a freeway (let alone an Interstate 67). It would likely be a four lane highway with at-grade intersections and access to homes and businesses along the corridor.
If the project from Owensboro to I-64 was any indication, it will be built on a new-location limited-access right of way, only permitting at-grade intersections at public roadway crossings.
I touched base with the project team and they are, among the other options, looking at the possibility of a Super 2 using as much existing roadway as possible. If they can do that, I think there's a good chance there could be improvements to the east-west routes that tie into it. There's really no need for it to be an Interstate-level road, but there's plenty of need for safety and throughput enhancements.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2020, 07:17:25 PM
I touched base with the project team and they are, among the other options, looking at the possibility of a Super 2 using as much existing roadway as possible.
Yes, you've said this an umpteenth amount of times. It's also included in the route study.
This is a map of Interstate 61-68, if you want me to make Interstate 60, let me know!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2JrZeWZTWGFIqyDW6DT-ScsZH4_6kt3&usp=sharing
Nice work on the map. I do see the need for the Western Georgia and Florida interstate. There is way too much traffic up and down I-75, and many travelers would love to avoid the Atlanta Metro. I do question the route of I-67 through KY and TN. That would be expensive in Kentucky to do, and you have just dissed the Southern Indiana people who are trying to get that routed near Huntingburg/Jasper.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on March 18, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Nice work on the map. I do see the need for the Western Georgia and Florida interstate. There is way too much traffic up and down I-75, and many travelers would love to avoid the Atlanta Metro. I do question the route of I-67 through KY and TN. That would be expensive in Kentucky to do, and you have just dissed the Southern Indiana people who are trying to get that routed near Huntingburg/Jasper.
I-67 is mainly just already built in Georgia, Tennessee, Michigan, and Indianapolis, the Kentucky part would be New Built highways. I-67 Between chattanooga and Louisville would be the highest elevation so i do see what you mean. this route would relieve traffic on I-75, and I-65
Quote from: Life in Paradise on March 18, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Nice work on the map. I do see the need for the Western Georgia and Florida interstate. There is way too much traffic up and down I-75, and many travelers would love to avoid the Atlanta Metro. I do question the route of I-67 through KY and TN. That would be expensive in Kentucky to do, and you have just dissed the Southern Indiana people who are trying to get that routed near Huntingburg/Jasper.
and the I-67 that i proposed would be in grid, Jasper, IN doesn't really warrant a 2d Interstate Highway, they just need a spur route going to it.
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
What i do is i try and use existing freeway segments, or i try not to go over any buildings, could you point out where you mean in evansville?
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 18, 2020, 07:40:29 PM
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
What i do is i try and use existing freeway segments, or i try not to go over any buildings, could you point out where you mean in evansville?
Utilizing I-69 and I-64 around the east and north side would be the best way to go to utilize existing freeway. Your plan follows the Lloyd Expwy and surface roads around and on the west side of Evansville.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2020, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 18, 2020, 07:40:29 PM
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
What i do is i try and use existing freeway segments, or i try not to go over any buildings, could you point out where you mean in evansville?
Utilizing I-69 and I-64 around the east and north side would be the best way to go to utilize existing freeway. Your plan follows the Lloyd Expwy and surface roads around and on the west side of Evansville.
ok, the lloyd freeway (from above) looks like it could be upgraded with no problems because i dont see any at-grade intersections
The segment west of Pigeon Creek has 16 at-grade intersections towards the University of Southern Indiana. East of US 41, there are 9 at-grade intersections to I-69, and plenty more to the east of that.
Quote from: seicer on March 18, 2020, 09:24:56 PM
The segment west of Pigeon Creek has 16 at-grade intersections towards the University of Southern Indiana. East of US 41, there are 9 at-grade intersections to I-69, and plenty more to the east of that.
its been fixed, the whole map is done!
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
The only north-south route upgrade that I would do that involves the Evansville, IN area is to upgrade the US 41 (IN) corridor to a southward extension of 'I-41', perhaps feeding it into the Chicagoland expressways via IL 394 at its northern end. In the Evansville area, I would have it diverge from I-69 at that first major curve north of I-64.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 19, 2020, 03:13:16 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
The only north-south route upgrade that I would do that involves the Evansville, IN area is to upgrade the US 41 (IN) corridor to a southward extension of 'I-41', perhaps feeding it into the Chicagoland expressways via IL 394 at its northern end. In the Evansville area, I would have it diverge from I-69 at that first major curve north of I-64.
Mike
I drive US 41 quite a bit on my way to Southern Indiana because I'm tired of all the trucks on I-65. There just isn't anywhere near enough traffic on US 41/IN 63 between IN 10 and Terre Haute to justify the expense of a freeway upgrade. If the Illiana never gets built, a new terrain connection between the south end of IL 394 and US 41 near the Lake/Newton border would be sufficient.
Quote from: mgk920 on March 19, 2020, 03:13:16 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
The only north-south route upgrade that I would do that involves the Evansville, IN area is to upgrade the US 41 (IN) corridor to a southward extension of 'I-41', perhaps feeding it into the Chicagoland expressways via IL 394 at its northern end. In the Evansville area, I would have it diverge from I-69 at that first major curve north of I-64.
Mike
the only place I think I-41 should be extended at is along I-294 to end at I-80
Shouldn't this ENTIRE THREAD be moved to the "Fictional Highways" forum? For now, any discussion of an Interstate 67 in ANY state is mere speculation and/or wishful thinking.
Quote from: SSR_317 on March 21, 2020, 04:15:24 PM
Shouldn't this ENTIRE THREAD be moved to the "Fictional Highways" forum? For now, any discussion of an Interstate 67 in ANY state is mere speculation and/or wishful thinking.
depends, if you want to start one for it go right at it
This thread should only be used for discussions of actual I-67 proposals made by government officials or those working with government officials to make it policy. If you want to draw lines on a map to say where you think an I-67 should go, take it to Fictional Highways.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2020, 04:31:58 PM
This thread should only be used for discussions of actual I-67 proposals made by government officials or those working with government officials to make it policy. If you want to draw lines on a map to say where you think an I-67 should go, take it to Fictional Highways.
The Owensboro mayor will be glad to know he's not being relegated to fictional territory. :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on March 26, 2020, 11:53:18 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2020, 04:31:58 PM
This thread should only be used for discussions of actual I-67 proposals made by government officials or those working with government officials to make it policy. If you want to draw lines on a map to say where you think an I-67 should go, take it to Fictional Highways.
The Owensboro mayor will be glad to know he's not being relegated to fictional territory. :bigass:
The various occupants of that office have been writing their own fiction for decades! However, nothing of the quality or import that would earn them a Pulitzer!
Alternative P was selected for the Mid States Corridor in Indiana, looks like it will just parallels existing US 231 and will probably just be a continuation of the divided highway that starts south of 64.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 12, 2022, 08:18:17 AM
Alternative P was selected for the Mid States Corridor in Indiana, looks like it will just parallels existing US 231 and will probably just be a continuation of the divided highway that starts south of 64.
It could also still be a super-2 ... which would probably be sufficient.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 19, 2020, 08:08:50 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 19, 2020, 03:13:16 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on March 18, 2020, 06:54:10 PM
Those new Evansville routes you've proposed are quite the stretch... I'm not sure if anyone would be up for something like that. A project that big would exceed that of the Lloyd Expwy, where the construction split through the middle of town and took several months of destruction and construction. Ripping more interstates through that town would certainly give it some growth in the very long run, and I do see the need for a full circle bypass eventually, but what you're showing would absolutely take a toll on the community permanently.
The only north-south route upgrade that I would do that involves the Evansville, IN area is to upgrade the US 41 (IN) corridor to a southward extension of 'I-41', perhaps feeding it into the Chicagoland expressways via IL 394 at its northern end. In the Evansville area, I would have it diverge from I-69 at that first major curve north of I-64.
Mike
I drive US 41 quite a bit on my way to Southern Indiana because I'm tired of all the trucks on I-65. There just isn't anywhere near enough traffic on US 41/IN 63 between IN 10 and Terre Haute to justify the expense of a freeway upgrade. If the Illiana never gets built, a new terrain connection between the south end of IL 394 and US 41 near the Lake/Newton border would be sufficient.
I enjoyed US-41 and IN-63 over I-65. It was a nice drive with not much traffic and I was able to move about 60-65 mph.