Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NE2]

They AREN'T interstate quality, not if I-69 is to be the "through route".  The FHWA has BANNED TOTSOs in new interstates.

Which is why the I-55/69 split will need to be rebuilt. Oh wait.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Sorry Gang, what is a TOTSO?

[Big John]

^^ TOTSO means "Turn Off To Stay On" meaning one must take an exit to stay on the same route.

[US 41]

They AREN'T interstate quality, not if I-69 is to be the "through route".  The FHWA has BANNED TOTSOs in new interstates.

Which is why the I-55/69 split will need to be rebuilt. Oh wait.

Yeah no kidding.

Then we got the Quad Cities in Illinois where I-74 / I-80 meet at a cloverleaf. Further west I-74 goes through another cloverleaf. Both of those are in a much busier setting.

I don't care what the rules are, it's still a waste of money to redo exits that are basically interstate quality. Until they stop wasting money on pointless projects like these I am totally against a raise in the gas tax. They could use all that money they are wasting to fix (repave) existing roads.

[lordsutch]

They AREN'T interstate quality, not if I-69 is to be the "through route".  The FHWA has BANNED TOTSOs in new interstates.

Which is why the I-55/69 split will need to be rebuilt. Oh wait.

I-55/69 has a C/D road on the I-55 mainline, which probably allowed the capacity of the interchange to be sufficient for the design year when FHWA Mississippi division signed off on designating the route. I don't think the TOTSO issue has much to do with it.

If we compare the I-24/Purchase interchange, you have two loop ramps on the westbound I-24 carriageway that will attract a lot of movements (I-69 through traffic as well as I-69 NB traffic heading for Paducah) without a C/D road. You're likely going to run into operational issues for I-24 through traffic in addition to people trying to stay on I-69 as soon as you see an uptick in I-69 through traffic due to the upgrades elsewhere.

As for the US 45 and KY 80 interchanges, one thing you'll note in the diagram is that KYTC is also adding capacity with auxiliary lanes; I suspect that it'd be hard to add the necessary extra through lanes for I-69 under traffic (particularly widening the northbound I-69 overpass over US 45 to add an extra lane and a shoulder), while rebuilding the interchange with I-69 as the through route allows the staging to be less disruptive.

As for Quad Cities, nobody is proposing designating a new interstate there so it's really a non-sequitur.

[NE2]

Since 1995 the following has been law:

(A) IN GENERAL- The portions of the routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that the segment--

    (i) meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; and
    (ii) connects to an existing Interstate System segment.

Nothing here says that the connection to an existing Interstate (I-24) must be up to extra "no-TOTSO" standards. Simply make sure that the Purchase itself is up to standards, and it becomes I-69.

[lordsutch]

Since 1995 the following has been law:

(A) IN GENERAL- The portions of the routes referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), and in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) that are not a part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts of the Interstate System. Any segment of such routes shall become a part of the Interstate System at such time as the Secretary determines that the segment--

    (i) meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code; and
    (ii) connects to an existing Interstate System segment.

Nothing here says that the connection to an existing Interstate (I-24) must be up to extra "no-TOTSO" standards. Simply make sure that the Purchase itself is up to standards, and it becomes I-69.

I think by definition any connection to an existing Interstate segment would have to meet the design standards under 23 USC 109(b), since the connecting interchange itself would be part of the newly designated Interstate highway. Here's the relevant section of federal law:

(b) The geometric and construction standards to be adopted for the Interstate System shall be those approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the State transportation departments. Such standards, as applied to each actual construction project, shall be adequate to enable such project to accommodate the types and volumes of traffic anticipated for such project for the twenty-year period commencing on the date of approval by the Secretary, under section 106 of this title, of the plans, specifications, and estimates for actual construction of such project. Such standards shall in all cases provide for at least four lanes of traffic. The right-of-way width of the Interstate System shall be adequate to permit construction of projects on the Interstate System to such standards. The Secretary shall apply such standards uniformly throughout all the States.

Emphasis added. Incidentally this suggests that FHWA Mississippi division blew the decision to approve the I-55/69 routing involving single-lane ramps, although I believe there are plans to widen the loop ramp at least; it also means that FHWA Tennessee division probably won't approve designating I-69 in South Fulton until there are plans to rebuild the interchange at US 45E.

[vdeane]

They AREN'T interstate quality, not if I-69 is to be the "through route".  The FHWA has BANNED TOTSOs in new interstates.

Which is why the I-55/69 split will need to be rebuilt. Oh wait.

I have no idea how that ever got approved.

[english si]

Which is why the I-55/69 split will need to be rebuilt. Oh wait.

I have no idea how that ever got approved.

I think it's fine as long as the other route is an interstate. The issue in KY is where the straight on route isn't an interstate.

[rte66man]

Here is a screen cap from Earth Explorer showing the Purchase just north of the KY80 interchange:

2016-02-13_16-33-36 by rte66man, on Flickr

The lack of merging lanes and VERY short ramps are a real problem IMO.

[rickmastfan67]

Which is why the I-55/69 split will need to be rebuilt. Oh wait.

I have no idea how that ever got approved.

I think it's fine as long as the other route is an interstate. The issue in KY is where the straight on route isn't an interstate.

I think it's because they think most traffic will bypass using I-269 once that's open.  I can think that's the only reason it was approved.

[noelbotevera]

Here is a screen cap from Earth Explorer showing the Purchase just north of the KY80 interchange:
(snip)
The lack of merging lanes and VERY short ramps are a real problem IMO.

Someone should correct me here, but I believe that the interchange dates from when the Purchase was a toll road, and thus the toll was under the overpass, and all the lanes merged and exited before and after it respectively. After the tolls were removed, all the interchanges that had tolls end up like this with almost no merge space and sometimes short ramps.

[hbelkins]

Here is a screen cap from Earth Explorer showing the Purchase just north of the KY80 interchange:
(snip)
The lack of merging lanes and VERY short ramps are a real problem IMO.

Someone should correct me here, but I believe that the interchange dates from when the Purchase was a toll road, and thus the toll was under the overpass, and all the lanes merged and exited before and after it respectively. After the tolls were removed, all the interchanges that had tolls end up like this with almost no merge space and sometimes short ramps.

Actually, the KY 80 interchange dates back from where that segment of the Purchase was the US 45 bypass.

As for TOTSOs, that might be the case for I-69 being the through route at the WK/Pennyrile interchange, but not necessarily at the I-24/Purchase interchange. I-24 would seem to be the through route. And I'm surprised more wasn't done to upgrade the I-24/WK interchange.

[lordsutch]

Someone should correct me here, but I believe that the interchange dates from when the Purchase was a toll road, and thus the toll was under the overpass, and all the lanes merged and exited before and after it respectively. After the tolls were removed, all the interchanges that had tolls end up like this with almost no merge space and sometimes short ramps.

Actually, the KY 80 interchange dates back from where that segment of the Purchase was the US 45 bypass.

Indeed. The former toll booth locations are mostly eliminated now and reconstructed as standard diamonds; originally many were loop-ramp only interchanges where mainline and ramp tolls were collected in the same place with toll booths under the overpass. A surviving example.

As for TOTSOs, that might be the case for I-69 being the through route at the WK/Pennyrile interchange, but not necessarily at the I-24/Purchase interchange. I-24 would seem to be the through route. And I'm surprised more wasn't done to upgrade the I-24/WK interchange.

Again suggesting there's not a TOTSO "rule" but instead it's about design capacity. The I-24/WK ramps are adequate for traffic expected around 2025; the WK/Pennyrile and I-24/Purchase (and US 45 Bypass/Purchase) ramps weren't.

[noelbotevera]

So just north of exit 14, I found this. So starting from the beginning, this will be part of I-69 or the sign outdated? Also, is exit 14 another project that has to be done in order for this to become I-69?

[ukfan758]

So just north of exit 14, I found this. So starting from the beginning, this will be part of I-69 or the sign outdated? Also, is exit 14 another project that has to be done in order for this to become I-69?

To answer your first question, yes, the Purchase Parkway will become I-69 once improvements are made and the sign is not outdated due to the parkway not yet being an interstate. To answer the second, considering there is only about 100-150 feet of merging and exit space, exit 14 will most likely have to be re-done.

[abqtraveler]

So just north of exit 14, I found this. So starting from the beginning, this will be part of I-69 or the sign outdated? Also, is exit 14 another project that has to be done in order for this to become I-69?

To answer your first question, yes, the Purchase Parkway will become I-69 once improvements are made and the sign is not outdated due to the parkway not yet being an interstate. To answer the second, considering there is only about 100-150 feet of merging and exit space, exit 14 will most likely have to be re-done.

Exit 14 is one of those "tollbooth" style interchanges that will have to be reconfigured to (preemptively) a diamond interchange.  I think it's the last of the tollbooth interchanges that needs to be reworked.

[thefro]

All the I-69 signs on the Pennyrile Parkway and mile markers are now up.

Installation of signage for new exit numbers and mile markers along 41.8 miles of Interstate 69 from Mortons Gap to the Ky. 425 Henderson Bypass is complete. According to KYTC District 2 Chief Engineer Kevin McClearn, all I-69 mile markers are up, and the old Pennyrile Parkway mile points are being taken down.

As of April 14, emergency agencies in Hopkins, Webster and Henderson counties were asked to convert their incident response and crash reporting to the I-69 mile points.

[The Ghostbuster]

Now to upgrade the Purchase Parkway and connect the Pennyrile with Interstate 69 in Indiana. Then Kentucky's segment of 69 will be good to go.

[EngineerTM]

Now to upgrade the Purchase Parkway and connect the Pennyrile with Interstate 69 in Indiana. Then Kentucky's segment of 69 will be good to go.

Close, but not quite.  I did read earlier that contracts were awarded by the KTC for two or three interchange reconstructions (which is a big part of the conversion of the Purchase Parkway to I-69).  However, the last major item that will still need to be done is the interchange work and transition between Kentucky and Tennessee down in Fulton.  Not really sure when that work will begin and it will need to be coordinated between both states.  However, excluding that, you are correct: Kentucky's segment will essentially be completed.

Still need to stay tuned for the I-69/Ohio River bridge between Kentucky and Indiana. 

[lordsutch]

Close, but not quite.  I did read earlier that contracts were awarded by the KTC for two or three interchange reconstructions (which is a big part of the conversion of the Purchase Parkway to I-69).  However, the last major item that will still need to be done is the interchange work and transition between Kentucky and Tennessee down in Fulton.  Not really sure when that work will begin and it will need to be coordinated between both states.  However, excluding that, you are correct: Kentucky's segment will essentially be completed.

Technically the substandard interchange is entirely in Tennessee, so there's nothing for Kentucky to do. Any solution that makes I-69 a proper through route probably will require some work in Kentucky though.

[EngineerTM]

Close, but not quite.  I did read earlier that contracts were awarded by the KTC for two or three interchange reconstructions (which is a big part of the conversion of the Purchase Parkway to I-69).  However, the last major item that will still need to be done is the interchange work and transition between Kentucky and Tennessee down in Fulton.  Not really sure when that work will begin and it will need to be coordinated between both states.  However, excluding that, you are correct: Kentucky's segment will essentially be completed.

Technically the substandard interchange is entirely in Tennessee, so there's nothing for Kentucky to do. Any solution that makes I-69 a proper through route probably will require some work in Kentucky though.

I found this document on the KTC's I-69 webpage.  It is the "Recommendations" part of what I think was their final corridor study:

http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20Fulton%20to%20Eddyville%20Section%20-%209_RECOMMENDATIONS_AND_NEXT_STEPS.pdf

On page 9-3, the report recommended that Kentucky seek design variances for interchange spaces for Exits 0, 1, and 3 around Fulton.  It also stated that there would need to be coordination between Kentucky and Tennessee regarding the Exit 0 Weigh Station Interchange along with addressing other undefined deficiencies for the I-69 connectivity across state lines.  This is what I was alluding to in my earlier posts.  I was in no way trying to make light of the work that the KTC has recently let for construction for the remainder of the Purchase Parkway's improvements.  I sincerely hope that I-69 through Indiana and Kentucky will be completely finished (including the new Ohio River crossing) by 2022.

[Grzrd]

Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul has introduced a proposed amendment, SA 3967, to SA 3896 to House Appropriations Bill H.R. 2777 that designates the Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from I-24 to I-69 as I-169:

SA 3967. Mr. PAUL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3896 proposed by Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Tester) to the bill H.R. 2577, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 41, strike lines 12 through 25 and insert the following:
``(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
``(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.''.
(b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence by striking ``and subsection (c)(83)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(83), subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)''.
(c) Designation.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I-57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I-169.''.

Well, this probably eliminates one designation possibility for the Future I-69 Spur/ Audubon Parkway.

I found this document on the KTC's I-69 webpage.  It is the "Recommendations" part of what I think was their final corridor study:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20Fulton%20to%20Eddyville%20Section%20-%209_RECOMMENDATIONS_AND_NEXT_STEPS.pdf
On page 9-3, the report recommended that Kentucky seek design variances for interchange spaces for Exits 0, 1, and 3 around Fulton.  It also stated that there would need to be coordination between Kentucky and Tennessee regarding the Exit 0 Weigh Station Interchange along with addressing other undefined deficiencies for the I-69 connectivity across state lines.  This is what I was alluding to in my earlier posts.

TDOT and KYTC conducted a December 3, 2015 Public Meeting regarding an I-69 state ine connection that has been recently discussed in the I-69 in TN thread.

[mgk920]

Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul has introduced a proposed amendment, SA 3967, to SA 3896 to House Appropriations Bill H.R. 2777 that designates the Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from I-24 to I-69 as I-169:

SA 3967. Mr. PAUL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3896 proposed by Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Tester) to the bill H.R. 2577, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 41, strike lines 12 through 25 and insert the following:
``(89) United States Route 67 from Interstate 40 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, to United States Route 412.
``(90) The Edward T. Breathitt Parkway from Interstate 24 to Interstate 69.''.
(b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended in the first sentence by striking ``and subsection (c)(83)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(83), subsection (c)(89), and subsection (c)(90)''.
(c) Designation.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The route referred to in subsection (c)(89) is designated as Interstate Route I-57. The route referred to in subsection (c)(90) is designated as Interstate Route I-169.''.

Well, this probably eliminates one designation possibility for the Future I-69 Spur/ Audubon Parkway.

I found this document on the KTC's I-69 webpage.  It is the "Recommendations" part of what I think was their final corridor study:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20Fulton%20to%20Eddyville%20Section%20-%209_RECOMMENDATIONS_AND_NEXT_STEPS.pdf
On page 9-3, the report recommended that Kentucky seek design variances for interchange spaces for Exits 0, 1, and 3 around Fulton.  It also stated that there would need to be coordination between Kentucky and Tennessee regarding the Exit 0 Weigh Station Interchange along with addressing other undefined deficiencies for the I-69 connectivity across state lines.  This is what I was alluding to in my earlier posts.

TDOT and KYTC conducted a December 3, 2015 Public Meeting regarding an I-69 state ine connection that has been recently discussed in the I-69 in TN thread.

Naaaah, 'I-41'.

 

Mike

[Stephane Dumas]

Naaaah, 'I-41'.

 

Mike

  

With the interchange at KY-1682 who's the remaining interchange left if it's original configuration http://gokml.net/maps-azteca.php#ll=36.893257,-87.464286&z=15&t=r and some overpasses height. Is there a lot to upgrade the remaining Edward T. Breathitt pwky/Pennyrile pkwy to upgrade before it's get its I-169 or I-41  designation?