AARoads Forum

So from what I saw, a local group wants I-64 removed between the Watterson and 64's junction between 65/71. If it were to be removed, what would happen to the I-64 designation in the Louisville area? And what should be considered other than removal? What would happen to traffic and development if 64's Riverfront section was removed entirely?

This movement was squashed when they went with the Ohio river bridges. 64 isn't going anywhere. But in your alternate history if it did happen I'd say it would replace 265.

How many new threads do you need to post per day? Lots of these topics have been discussed in plenty of other threads already.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure the group that wants I-64 removed (8664) faded out of prominence years ago. If I-64 were to be removed, it'll most likely get rerouted on I-265 via the Lewis and Clark bridge.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:35:09 PM
This movement was squashed when they went with the Ohio river bridges. 64 isn't going anywhere. But in your alternate history if it did happen I'd say it would replace 265.

I was thinking it would replace 264 between exits 0 and 12, then piggyback with 65 between exits 131 and 137, then continue its trek towards Lexington and Ashland via Frankfort and Winchester.

This statement literally applies to you. And it's really not relevant how many times I post in this thread.

At least I've not exceeded the 8 in 24 hours yet. Do they really do anything if you post 9 in 24 hours?

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:40:44 PM
At least I've not exceeded the 8 in 24 hours yet. Do they really do anything if you post 9 in 24 hours?

Are you 12 years old? Resulting in petty insults that have nothing to do with anything? Maybe you should look in the mirror, and spell check too.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:41:50 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:40:44 PM
At least I've not exceeded the 8 in 24 hours yet. Do they really do anything if you post 9 in 24 hours?

Are you 12 years old? Resulting in petty insults that have nothing to do with anything? Maybe you should look in the mirror, and spell check too.

I'm in the younger generation, but not THAT young.

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:43:11 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:41:50 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:40:44 PM
At least I've not exceeded the 8 in 24 hours yet. Do they really do anything if you post 9 in 24 hours?

Are you 12 years old? Resulting in petty insults that have nothing to do with anything? Maybe you should look in the mirror, and spell check too.

I'm in the younger generation, but not THAT young.

This is a thread for posting however many times you want and give your opinion. Stick to that not sophomoric insults.

Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:53:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

I don't think a west end bridge was ever or will ever be planned. There's literally nothing over there in Indiana for it to go to

This is borderline Fictional, just so you know.

"8664" was a bad idea that got shot down.

A western I-265 bridge would be prohibitively expensive, and would require a long freeway through a rural area to tie back in to I-64. It's as bad of an idea as the third Louisville beltway that's actually under serious consideration.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2021, 08:25:46 PM
It's as bad of an idea as the third Louisville beltway that's actually under serious consideration.

I'm really hoping that the third Louisville beltway idea dies down quicker than the proposed "I-875"  Cincinnati outer beltway from about 2 decades ago. There's no way a metro area with a population of 1.4 million needs three beltways.

I lived in the Louisville area for 11 years, and here are my thoughts:

1) This site has a search function, so you can search to see if a thread exists about a topic before starting a new one.

2) There is a group that wants to remove the 64 freeway between I-65/71 and the western I-264 junction, but they're barely active.

3) This site has a search function, so you can search to see if a thread exists about a topic before starting a new one.

4) While I-64 (and the accompanying through traffic) could certainly be routed over the new east end bridge and I-265 in Indiana, there is a sizable amount of traffic that commutes to downtown Louisville via I-64 from Floyd and Harrison counties in Indiana and removing this section of I-64 would lengthen that commute and also dump a lot of unwanted traffic on west end surface streets.

5) This site has a search function, so you can search to see if a thread exists about a topic before starting a new one.

I used the search function to try and see if there was a topic about a West End Bridge, but I couldn't find such a topic.

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 09:29:25 PM
I used the search function to try and see if there was a topic about a West End Bridge, but I couldn't find such a topic.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22987.0

Not exactly the same (as it's mainly about the third beltway), but there is discussion about an I-265 West End bridge, as that would logically come before a third beltway, if either would get built anyways.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:53:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

I don't think a west end bridge was ever or will ever be planned. There's literally nothing over there in Indiana for it to go to

A new terrain route would cost millions to build, and environmental studies would take years. Meaning it's out of the question. In 2005, some Louisville Metro Council members did plan a committee to begin planning a West End Bridge to link the west end to Indiana's 265 (Exit 121) or I-64 Exit 119, where I-265 could join I-64 east to connect to Exit 121. The committee never gained traction.

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 09:53:09 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:53:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

I don't think a west end bridge was ever or will ever be planned. There's literally nothing over there in Indiana for it to go to

A new terrain route would cost millions to build, and environmental studies would take years. Meaning it's out of the question. In 2005, some Louisville Metro Council members did plan a committee to begin planning a West End Bridge to link the west end to Indiana's 265 (Exit 121) or I-64 Exit 119, where I-265 could join I-64 east to connect to Exit 121. The committee never gained traction.

Not sure where you got your info about the Council committee, but liking a southwestern bridge to I-64 at either exits 121 or 119 is pretty much impossible due to the terrain in that area.

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 21, 2021, 10:00:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 09:53:09 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:53:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

I don't think a west end bridge was ever or will ever be planned. There's literally nothing over there in Indiana for it to go to

A new terrain route would cost millions to build, and environmental studies would take years. Meaning it's out of the question. In 2005, some Louisville Metro Council members did plan a committee to begin planning a West End Bridge to link the west end to Indiana's 265 (Exit 121) or I-64 Exit 119, where I-265 could join I-64 east to connect to Exit 121. The committee never gained traction.

Not sure where you got your info about the Council committee, but liking a southwestern bridge to I-64 at either exits 121 or 119 is pretty much impossible due to the terrain in that area.

Basically, it's too hilly and rugged for a freeway to be built through there without lots of excavation, even if eminent domain usage is minimized?

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 10:21:15 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 21, 2021, 10:00:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 09:53:09 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:53:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

I don't think a west end bridge was ever or will ever be planned. There's literally nothing over there in Indiana for it to go to

A new terrain route would cost millions to build, and environmental studies would take years. Meaning it's out of the question. In 2005, some Louisville Metro Council members did plan a committee to begin planning a West End Bridge to link the west end to Indiana's 265 (Exit 121) or I-64 Exit 119, where I-265 could join I-64 east to connect to Exit 121. The committee never gained traction.

Not sure where you got your info about the Council committee, but liking a southwestern bridge to I-64 at either exits 121 or 119 is pretty much impossible due to the terrain in that area.

Basically, it's too hilly and rugged for a freeway to be built through there without lots of excavation, even if eminent domain usage is minimized?

Yes, no freeway is getting built through that terrain.

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 21, 2021, 10:27:17 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 10:21:15 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 21, 2021, 10:00:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 09:53:09 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 21, 2021, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 06:53:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand here. I don't think the group succeeded in getting 64 removed. I'm sure it would have not only taken years, but also required federal approval and even the movement's 1999 proponent of the movement called it a paper dream. And I'm not sure that 264, 265, and 65 would be able to suddenly take on that section of 64's traffic. And right now there's no plans on the books for a West End Bridge on 265. I'll ask, is there a thread about a 265 West End Bridge? I'm not planning to make any more threads for the day so I'll just start looking at the other ones and see if there's one about a west end bridge on 265.

I don't think a west end bridge was ever or will ever be planned. There's literally nothing over there in Indiana for it to go to

A new terrain route would cost millions to build, and environmental studies would take years. Meaning it's out of the question. In 2005, some Louisville Metro Council members did plan a committee to begin planning a West End Bridge to link the west end to Indiana's 265 (Exit 121) or I-64 Exit 119, where I-265 could join I-64 east to connect to Exit 121. The committee never gained traction.

Not sure where you got your info about the Council committee, but liking a southwestern bridge to I-64 at either exits 121 or 119 is pretty much impossible due to the terrain in that area.

Basically, it's too hilly and rugged for a freeway to be built through there without lots of excavation, even if eminent domain usage is minimized?

Yes, no freeway is getting built through that terrain.

And many people would be unhappy if they have to blast part of that to get 265 through there.

I was just thinking: has there been any talk in Louisville about putting I-64 through a tunnel with a park on top of it, much like with the "Big Dig" in Boston? Why or why not?

No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Quote from: KCRoadFan on October 21, 2021, 11:06:40 PM
I was just thinking: has there been any talk in Louisville about putting I-64 through a tunnel with a park on top of it, much like with the "Big Dig" in Boston? Why or why not?

Is a tunnel right next to a river even possible?

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 22, 2021, 07:22:12 AM

Quote from: KCRoadFan on October 21, 2021, 11:06:40 PM
I was just thinking: has there been any talk in Louisville about putting I-64 through a tunnel with a park on top of it, much like with the "Big Dig" in Boston? Why or why not?

Is a tunnel right next to a river even possible?

Theoretically, yes.  The Vieux Carre Freeway in New Orleans (the original I-310) had a short tunnel section built next to the Mississippi River (now part of Harrah's parking garage).  There's a part of NJ 29 in Trenton that is partially in a tunnel next to the Delaware River.

These "freeway removal"  groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 21, 2021, 08:32:13 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2021, 08:25:46 PM
It's as bad of an idea as the third Louisville beltway that's actually under serious consideration.

I'm really hoping that the third Louisville beltway idea dies down quicker than the proposed "I-875"  Cincinnati outer beltway from about 2 decades ago. There's no way a metro area with a population of 1.4 million needs three beltways.

That seems to be the wet dream of developers in Campbell County, Ky., and the east side of Cincinnati.

I can see the utility in building something from the I-71/I-75 split to tie into I-471. It would make a good reroute for through I-71 traffic and could serve as a relief route for the Brent Spence Bridge in conjunction with the Norwood Lateral.

Last I heard, Ohio/ODOT had pretty much killed the eastern beltway while Kentucky interests were still pushing it.

Quote from: SP Cook on October 22, 2021, 10:30:37 AM
These "freeway removal"  groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.

You never know.  The Inner Loop removal push in Rochester seemed that way up until about a month or two before demolition began - and even a good chunk of that time was only there because that was the year Buffalo got seven feet of snow all at once, so the equipment was delayed getting in.  These things can move fast once they finally get traction at the political level.

Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2021, 12:50:18 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on October 22, 2021, 10:30:37 AM
These "freeway removal"  groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.

You never know.  The Inner Loop removal push in Rochester seemed that way up until about a month or two before demolition began - and even a good chunk of that time was only there because that was the year Buffalo got seven feet of snow all at once, so the equipment was delayed getting in.  These things can move fast once they finally get traction at the political level.

(See also Exit 3 on the Northway)

Quote from: vdeane on October 22, 2021, 12:50:18 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on October 22, 2021, 10:30:37 AM
These "freeway removal"  groups are usually little more than a handful of people and a website.  Not to be taken seriously.

You never know.  The Inner Loop removal push in Rochester seemed that way up until about a month or two before demolition began - and even a good chunk of that time was only there because that was the year Buffalo got seven feet of snow all at once, so the equipment was delayed getting in.  These things can move fast once they finally get traction at the political level.

The inner loops removal isn't really comparable here. If I remember correctly the inner loops traffic counts were not that high anyway. (And mind you I liked the idea of killing the inner loop)

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2021, 11:53:23 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 21, 2021, 08:32:13 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2021, 08:25:46 PM
It's as bad of an idea as the third Louisville beltway that's actually under serious consideration.

I'm really hoping that the third Louisville beltway idea dies down quicker than the proposed "I-875"  Cincinnati outer beltway from about 2 decades ago. There's no way a metro area with a population of 1.4 million needs three beltways.

That seems to be the wet dream of developers in Campbell County, Ky., and the east side of Cincinnati.

I can see the utility in building something from the I-71/I-75 split to tie into I-471. It would make a good reroute for through I-71 traffic and could serve as a relief route for the Brent Spence Bridge in conjunction with the Norwood Lateral.

Last I heard, Ohio/ODOT had pretty much killed the eastern beltway while Kentucky interests were still pushing it.

I have no idea why this beltway is being proposed. Or the one in Louisville. Can someone explain this? Seems like overkill.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.

fair point. :-D also remember america is bad at making tunnels affordable

Quote from: CardInLex on October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM
A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

:-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM
A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

:-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 22, 2021, 01:21:47 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM
A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

:-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:25:51 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 22, 2021, 01:21:47 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM
A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

:-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...

It carries lots of traffic. And there's development along both 64 and the Watterson. The idea to remove 264 would never gain traction among Louisville residents. Removing 64 never gained traction. Removing 264 definitely will not be gaining traction anytime soon, despite more people moving to the suburbs and working from home nowadays.

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 22, 2021, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:25:51 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 22, 2021, 01:21:47 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM
A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

:-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...

It carries lots of traffic. And there's development along both 64 and the Watterson. The idea to remove 264 would never gain traction among Louisville residents. Removing 64 never gained traction. Removing 264 definitely will not be gaining traction anytime soon, despite more people moving to the suburbs and working from home nowadays.

removing 264 sounds as crazy is removing 465  :-D

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 02:07:55 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 22, 2021, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:25:51 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on October 22, 2021, 01:21:47 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on October 22, 2021, 01:12:54 PM
A couple of thoughts (Louisvillian (and downtown dweller) here)...

1) I would support the "8664"  initiative if it replaced 64 with a surface boulevard (like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive).
2) Waterfront Park is being expanded westward underneath 64. River Road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The remaining road will be repurposed into a new wider pedestrian and bike path. It would be nice if the park was not underneath 64.
3) A tunnel is not possible. MSD is currently digging a large tunnel underneath this section (and other parts of the city) that will be used for sewage collection. http://www.louisvillemsd.org/tunnel
4) If 64 were rerouted along the East End Bridge, the existing 64 and 265 (Kentucky) interchange would have to be rebuilt (it is currently being rebuilt but those plans keep the loop ramps for what would be the through movement).

Unrelated, there is a new "86-264"  group on Twitter that is calling for the removal of the Watterson/Powers Expressway. I do not support this initiative and definitely has less potential than 64 removal.

:-D remove 264?! crazy! removing 64 i think would be a good idea but i don't live there so i dont know anything about traffic there, seems like it wouldnt create a traffic issue to me but someone comment that knows this better.

A lot of people commute into downtown from Floyd/Harrison counties using I-64. Removing it dumps all that traffic out in residential neighborhoods.

i feel like that's something the removers never seem to understand, or they just don't care...

It carries lots of traffic. And there's development along both 64 and the Watterson. The idea to remove 264 would never gain traction among Louisville residents. Removing 64 never gained traction. Removing 264 definitely will not be gaining traction anytime soon, despite more people moving to the suburbs and working from home nowadays.

removing 264 sounds as crazy is removing 465  :-D

Or even removing the Southfield Freeway, even though it doesn't pass through Detroit proper.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2021, 11:53:23 AM

Last I heard, Ohio/ODOT had pretty much killed the eastern beltway while Kentucky interests were still pushing it.

While I agree 100% relative to Cincinnati, which is not that big a city and not that fast growing of a metro area, this is not always the case.  The original idea of a beltway or bypass of a city was really a bypass.  A mostly rural road where motorists, and more importantly freight which did not need to interact with the particular metro, could skip it entirely and go on their journey.

Sixty plus years on, there are metros, such as Atlanta, where growth has pushed the developed part out to and well past the beltway.  There are cases where returning to the original principles and going further out in the country to get people who just want past the city into a separate stream can save lives, energy, and time.

Regarding the third Louisville beltway, there are a lot of issues on KY 44 between Shepherdsville (I-65) and Mt. Washington (US 31E/US 150). The road is two lanes, narrow, no turn lanes, and little room for expansion because of ROW issues and the explosive growth Bullitt County has seen since 1970. Various issues have been looked at and from what I understand, several options are on the table. There aren't a lot of spot improvements or major widenings that could be done along a lot of the existing roads because of the extreme cost of ROW acquisition and the disruptions it would cause (I have two first cousins who live on KY 44 east of I-65).

Best option would be to widen I-265 to three lanes.

As for the Cincinnati bypass, it's pretty much developers who are pushing it so there will be better access to property that's now located in rural areas.

As much as I would have preferred the interstates removed from downtown, it's not happening. There is an active proposal to bore a third tunnel through Cherokee Park to widen I-64 to six lanes east of downtown, too.

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.

Try 1843 (and yes, it is still in use today).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Thames-Tunnel

Here in Indy they had a group try to get INDOT to bury 65/70. like the idea if money was no object  :-D

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 26, 2021, 03:03:51 PM
Here in Indy they had a group try to get INDOT to bury 65/70. like the idea if money was no object  :-D

A previous Philly mayor tried to put part of I-95 underground. I'm pretty familiar with that area and its freeways, and the idea to bury that part of I-95 died as soon as that mayor left office. The idea was never taken seriously. Despite the tunnel dying, a cap with a park and cafe is under construction, and will be over a 1/10 mile area and will be finished in three years.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/michael-nutter-philadelphia-mayor-waterfront-last/135635/

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:16:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.

fair point. :-D also remember america is bad at making tunnels affordable

Alabama of all places pulled it off right here in the good 'ole US of A.
Mobile River Tunnel (https://goo.gl/maps/CsCfQ4F4Y4uL7WpU8)

Quote from: MikieTimT on October 28, 2021, 05:16:34 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:16:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 01:11:18 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 22, 2021, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: Chrysler375Freeway on October 21, 2021, 11:34:35 PM
No, I don't believe so. I'm sure it would require ventilation buildings. Lots of them.

Not to mention the water table level that close to the Ohio. Tunnel there may be a bad idea for that reason too. Could require continuous pumping.

London has tunnels under the Thames...

Probably below the water table. Gotta think about entrance and exit grades too. Not as simple as tunnel it.

I don't know.  The original Thames tunnel, built in the late 1880s, was tunneled through muck, flooded once or twice during construction, and I believe it is still in use today.

fair point. :-D also remember america is bad at making tunnels affordable

Alabama of all places pulled it off right here in the good 'ole US of A.
Mobile River Tunnel (https://goo.gl/maps/CsCfQ4F4Y4uL7WpU8)

Louisiana has three, and they're called the Belle Chasse Tunnel, the Harvey Tunnel, and the Houma Tunnel. Harder to do because much of Louisiana is below sea level compared to Kentucky and Michigan, among other states.