Print

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

[Anthony_JK]

Isn't that one of those "cloverleaf" interchanges like they used to have on Kentucky's parkways where the loop ramps meet below the bridge structures to accomodate the toll booths?? If so, then I can see why they have to be removed and replaced with conventional diamond interchanges.  I guess we're not talking about traditional cloverleaf interchanges here..are we??

And in fact, if combined with C/D roadways to seperate the weaving movements, full cloverleafs can actually be pretty effective up to a point. See the I-55/I-69/I-269 interchange just south of Memphis, for example. (Though, a directional ramp where I-69 turns from E to N would be nice to add instead of having to negotiate a TOTSO 25-30mph loop.)

[NE2]

Isn't that one of those "cloverleaf" interchanges like they used to have on Kentucky's parkways where the loop ramps meet below the bridge structures to accomodate the toll booths??

No. It's a full cloverleaf where two parkways cross.

[Buck87]

Isn't that one of those "cloverleaf" interchanges like they used to have on Kentucky's parkways where the loop ramps meet below the bridge structures to accomodate the toll booths?? If so, then I can see why they have to be removed and replaced with conventional diamond interchanges.  I guess we're not talking about traditional cloverleaf interchanges here..are we??

No, this one looks like a traditional freeway to freeway cloverleaf. One where northbound I-69 traffic would currently have to use a loop ramp from the Western KY east to the Pennyrile north.

[tdindy88]

I believe they would rather have you continue at normal freeway speeds along I-69 from one parkway to the next without having to go 25 MPH on the loop ramp. On that note, won't they have to do something similar at the interchange with the Purchase and I-24 as well?

[NE2]

I believe they would rather have you continue at normal freeway speeds along I-69 from one parkway to the next without having to go 25 MPH on the loop ramp.

More correctly, it's a ramp that connects two perpendicular freeways along which I-69 happens to run.

PS: I-69 north takes a loop ramp of almost exactly the same radius to get onto I-55 in Mississippi. Being in a metropolitan area, this will probably get more traffic than the WK-Pennyrile ramp. Yet FHWA didn't throw a shitfit over it.

[Grzrd]

KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan. The Project Listing page

I believe they would rather have you continue at normal freeway speeds along I-69 from one parkway to the next without having to go 25 MPH on the loop ramp. On that note, won't they have to do something similar at the interchange with the Purchase and I-24 as well?

An approximate $40 million upgrade is planned (page 98/139 of Project Listing pdf):



edit

This report suggests the following (pages 3-4/7 of pdf):

• I-24 / Purchase Parkway Interchange – It is recommended to improve the eastbound I-24 to southbound I-69 ramp and construct a new southbound I-69 flyover ramp from  westbound I-24. The following existing ramps will be eliminated with this  recommendation:
o Westbound I-24 to northbound Purchase Parkway ramp
o Westbound I-24 to southbound Purchase Parkway loop ramp
o Eastbound I-24 to northbound Purchase Parkway loop ramp
The existing northbound Purchase Parkway to westbound I-24 loop ramp also will  remain in place and serve as the northbound I-69 to westbound I-24 connector under this scenario.

Here's a map (page 5/7 of pdf):

[hbelkins]

• I-24 / Purchase Parkway Interchange – It is recommended to improve the eastbound I-24 to southbound I-69 ramp and construct a new southbound I-69 flyover ramp from  westbound I-24. The following existing ramps will be eliminated with this  recommendation:
o Westbound I-24 to northbound Purchase Parkway ramp
o Westbound I-24 to southbound Purchase Parkway loop ramp
o Eastbound I-24 to northbound Purchase Parkway loop ramp
The existing northbound Purchase Parkway to westbound I-24 loop ramp also will  remain in place and serve as the northbound I-69 to westbound I-24 connector under this scenario.

That makes sense. The Purchase Parkway north of I-24 runs into US 62, for which access is provided to the northeast of the I-24/Purchase cloverleaf.

[US 41]

I obviously don't think cloverleafs should be used in downtown Louisville, but in the middle of nowhere they should definitely be used. They are the cheapest interchange and work very well in the middle of nowhere. They even work well in medium sized cities.

[silverback1065]

I obviously don't think cloverleafs should be used in downtown Louisville, but in the middle of nowhere they should definitely be used. They are the cheapest interchange and work very well in the middle of nowhere. They even work well in medium sized cities.

Sorry I didn't realize where you were talking about was in a rural area, I agree, a cloverleaf would work there. 

[hbelkins]

https://goo.gl/maps/Dil4p

[froggie]

PS: I-69 north takes a loop ramp of almost exactly the same radius to get onto I-55 in Mississippi. Being in a metropolitan area, this will probably get more traffic than the WK-Pennyrile ramp. Yet FHWA didn't throw a shitfit over it.

A) it was designed before I-69 came into the mix.

B) MDOT added C/D roads along I-55.

They are the cheapest interchange and work very well in the middle of nowhere.

Not necessarily.  It's all about the traffic volumes, not whether it's in an urban or rural area.  Case-in-point:  the three loop ramps at I-80/I-81.  Another example:  I-40/I-77.

[US 41]

[.

They are the cheapest interchange and work very well in the middle of nowhere.

Not necessarily.  It's all about the traffic volumes, not whether it's in an urban or rural area.  Case-in-point:  the three loop ramps at I-80/I-81.  Another example:  I-40/I-77.

Loops are cheaper than bridges.

[NE2]

PS: I-69 north takes a loop ramp of almost exactly the same radius to get onto I-55 in Mississippi. Being in a metropolitan area, this will probably get more traffic than the WK-Pennyrile ramp. Yet FHWA didn't throw a shitfit over it.

A) it was designed before I-69 came into the mix.

And the WK/Pennyrile wasn't designed before I-69?

[froggie]

Loops are cheaper than bridges.

Per FHWA, design standards trump cost.  Only in rare cases will they grant a design exemption, and it's always for a reason other than cost.

And it seems you missed my point anyway.  My point is that traffic volumes will dictate whether a cloverleaf "works very well", not whether or not it's in an urban or rural area.

And the WK/Pennyrile wasn't designed before I-69?

As I recall, it was also unclear until after construction on the "MS 304 freeway" began that I-69 was going to go through Memphis.  At the time, routing around Memphis via the MS 304/TN 385 loop was considered an option (and the one that Mississippi preferred), until the decision was made to make that I-269.

[Grzrd]

If they're going to make a US 641 freeway to Marion, they should make a US 60 freeway from Marion to Henderson.

It's not going to be a freeway. Just a relocated surface route. Saw some evidence of construction along the route last month on my trip to Joliet.

(above quote from US 641 thread)

While recently looking at the I-69 Corridor Planning Study, Eddyville to Henderson, a section suggesting that KYTC seek "formal recognition" of the "US 60 and US 641 corridor north of Eddyville" as "part of the National I-69 corridor" caught my eye (page 4/5 of pdf):

C. I-69 Connectors
Should the two Parkways be designated or developed as I-69, it is recommended that  consideration be given to improving other highway corridor connections to the route in order to enhance regional highway service and accessibility. Currently, the US 60 and US 641 corridor north of Eddyville is designated as a strategic  priority corridor and a future connector to I-69. The KYTC is currently undertaking  design efforts for the portion of the route between Marion and Fredonia, along a corridor that lies to the east of the existing US 641 route. In addition, the KYTC has initiated planning efforts for the portion of the route that would extend from Fredonia south to Eddyville.
Local officials from Hopkinsville have also expressed a strong interest in designating the  portion of the Breathitt Parkway south of the Ford Parkway (not included in the current I-69 study area) as a strategic corridor connection to I-69. South of Hopkinsville, an  extension of the Breathitt Parkway to I-24 would provide an additional north-south connection serving the I-69 corridor. The 8-mile extension of the Breathitt Parkway is shown as a proposed roadway on the KYTC’s Official Highway Map. The KYTC may want to pursue efforts to encourage the formal recognition of these segments as part of the National I-69 corridor, as other I-69 connectors have been similarly designated in other parts of the U.S.

I'm not sure if the US 641 and US 60 corridor really needs to be part of the I-69 Corridor, but I'm sure Congress could find a reason... 

[hbelkins]

^^^
How old is the above? The Pennyrile extension's been open for a couple of years now.

The US 641 corridor is being built, I understand, as two lanes on a four-lane ROW -- similar to the KY 67 Industrial Parkway on the other side of the state.

[Grzrd]

How old is the above? The Pennyrile extension's been open for a couple of years now.
The US 641 corridor is being built, I understand, as two lanes on a four-lane ROW -- similar to the KY 67 Industrial Parkway on the other side of the state.

It's from the March 2005 Overview of Existing Conditions.  After a brief look, I don't see any followup in the March 2008 Master Plan (a closer look may uncover it).

The 2005 report indicated that the 60-641 corridor, "Currently ... is designated as ... a future connector to I-69".  I assume that designation is from the Kentucky, and not the federal, side.  "I-69 connector" can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.  The corridor is currently composed of sections of two US highways: 60 and 641.  Giving that corridor one name (I-69 Connector, or something else) would probably help persuade businesses to look at locations along the corridor.  Also, this Feb. 15, 2012 article reports that the 60-641 corridor is thirteen miles shorter than the Future I-69 routing:

Taking the Pennyrile and Western Kentucky parkways from Henderson to Eddyville covers approximately 84 miles; some Hendersonians take a more direct two-lane route using U.S. 60 and U.S. 641 that shaves about 13 miles off the trip.

With spot improvements lessening the drive time on the corridor, it would become even more attractive to potential businesses.

I wouldn't anticipate any type of interstate-grade freeway upgrade for the corridor.  If Congress did formalize the 60-641 corridor as being part of the I-69 Corridor, then I would suspect it would be akin to the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor in Texas: a part of the I-69 Corridor that will probably never be upgraded to interstate standards, but will receive focused attention over time for spot improvements.

[US 41]

When the William Natcher Parkway in Kentucky was extended south in Bowling Green they put a cloverleaf at I-65. My point is that, that cloverleaf is in a mid-sized city. The cloverleaves we're talking about aren't even in a city.

[Buck87]

When the William Natcher Parkway in Kentucky was extended south in Bowling Green they put a cloverleaf at I-65. My point is that, that cloverleaf is in a mid-sized city. The cloverleaves we're talking about aren't even in a city.

But that's not really a comparable situation.

Leaving the WKY/Pennyrile cloverleaf as is would make through interstate traffic use a 25 mph loop ramp and traverse 2 weaving lanes to stay on the same interstate route. It would also likely create an awkward situation where the 70 mph WKY east would technically be a 2 lane left exit off of a 25 mph 1 lane interstate 69 that is about to make a 270 degree turn.

[NE2]

through interstate traffic

Hah. There's probably more traffic staying on each parkway.

[hbelkins]

When the William Natcher Parkway in Kentucky was extended south in Bowling Green they put a cloverleaf at I-65. My point is that, that cloverleaf is in a mid-sized city. The cloverleaves we're talking about aren't even in a city.

C/D lanes on I-65, if I'm not mistaken. And there is not exactly a lot of traffic on the Natcher.

Of course there won't be a lot of traffic on I-69 either.

[US 41]

In Beloit, WI where I-43 meets I-90/39 there is a cloverleaf. I have many more examples I can pull out of the hat.

[Buck87]

I have many more examples I can pull out of the hat.

For the sake of equal comparison to the situation we're talking about, filter that list of examples to just the ones where:

- only 1 interstate route uses the interchange
- said interstate is a 2di that does not terminate at the interchange
- the through routing of said interstate changes freeways at the interchange, with one direction of travel needing to use a loop ramp to stay on said interstate

[hbelkins]

In Beloit, WI where I-43 meets I-90/39 there is a cloverleaf. I have many more examples I can pull out of the hat.

There are cloverleafs all over the northeast. I-84/NY 17 (Future I-86) and I-95/I-495 southwest of Boston come to mind. Doesn't mean they are optimal.

I-64/I-255 in Illinois does too, but it has a network of C/D lanes that helps with the weaving/merging issues.

For the sake of equal comparison to the situation we're talking about, filter that list of examples to just the ones where:

- only 1 interstate route uses the interchange
- said interstate is a 2di that does not terminate at the interchange
- the through routing of said interstate changes freeways at the interchange, with one direction of travel needing to use a loop ramp to stay on said interstate

I don't think you need to apply all those criteria to the WK/Pennyrile interchange, although in this case instead of the WK and Pennyrile being two separate through routes, the through route is going to become I-69.

Can't remember if anyone pointed out I-55 and Crump in Memphis, but that's getting reworked.

I can see more of a case being made for not doing anything to the I-24/Purchase cloverleaf since I-24 is a through interstate. If not for the existence of the extension north to US 62, that would be a trumpet which would be good enough.

[TheStranger]

I have many more examples I can pull out of the hat.

For the sake of equal comparison to the situation we're talking about, filter that list of examples to just the ones where:

- only 1 interstate route uses the interchange
- said interstate is a 2di that does not terminate at the interchange
- the through routing of said interstate changes freeways at the interchange, with one direction of travel needing to use a loop ramp to stay on said interstate

As mentioned in the post before this one, I-55 north in Memphis is the first one that comes to mind, with a loop ramp at US 70.

Until it became I-215, I-15E southbound in Riverside, CA had this at Route 60/Route 91, though years later this movement was replaced with a flyover.