News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-165 Kentucky (William H. Natcher Green River Parkway)

Started by Grzrd, February 24, 2015, 01:55:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jnewkirk77



Avalanchez71

So will this get approved by FHWA as SPUR I-65 like I-69 was approved as I-69, I-69C, and I-69E?

Captain Jack


sparker

Chances are this is just a "placeholder" future designation -- with the emphasis on the "future" aspect of the signage.  I'm guessing that the final number has yet to be determined (I'd bet on "365").  It's like a NFL team trading for a "player to be named later"!

wdcrft63

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
So will this get approved by FHWA as SPUR I-65 like I-69 was approved as I-69, I-69C, and I-69E?
AASHTO will have to be heard from on the proper number for this new interstate route. (North Carolina's experience recent ly is that AASHTO won't necessarily approve the number the state requests!) Does anyone know if Kentucky will file a request for a number at the next AASHTO meeting in November?

jnewkirk77

Quote from: Captain Jack on August 26, 2016, 06:16:17 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on August 26, 2016, 05:10:55 PM
The "Future I-65 Spur" signs are going up.

http://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=KentuckyGovernor&prId=153

Is the Audubon still on track to become I-369?

The Audubon has been designated as a future I-69 spur for several years. Whether or not it's going to be 369, I'm not sure. That was the number that our chamber of commerce folks threw out there, as I recall.

ATLRedSoxFan

#56
Seems like I read the Natcher Parkway is supposed to be designated as I-565 and the Audobon will be I-369.,Only because that pesky stub in Evansville  and whether or not they were going to tag that as I-169.., But that could have changed. It's been years since I lived in Owensboro, but it kind of makes sense. Like I said, that could have changed.Seems like I read on the board that Indiana  is not even sure the stub will be signed or secret desiganation.

jnewkirk77

#57
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on August 27, 2016, 02:32:34 AM
Seems like I read the Natcher Parkway is supposed to be designated as I-565 and the Audobon will be I-369.,Only because that pesky stub in Evansville  and whether or not they were going to tag that as I-169.., But that could have changed. It's been years since I lived in Owensboro, but it kind of makes sense. Like I said, that could have changed.Seems like I read on the board that Indiana  is not even sure the stub will be signed or secret desiganation.

I have a feeling - just a gut feeling - that 169 will be used in Kentucky for the remaining section of the Pennyrile Parkway from I-24 near Hopkinsville to the WK/I-69 junction.  I also have a feeling that INDOT, once they're done jacking around with repaving 41, will do what they've done elsewhere in the state and loop 41 around over I-69 and I-64, turning what's now 41 over to Evansville and Vanderburgh County. It's a hunch, but look at Ft. Wayne, Lafayette and Indy (just to name a few), and it makes sense, even if it doesn't really make sense.

(EDIT: I've been thinking this would be what happens ever since they changed Business 41/Fares Avenue to "Old Business 41." Sort of makes me think the Evansville/Vanderburgh Co. folks might intend to refer to the current highway as Business 41. I would.)

Captain Jack

I am surprised it hasn't happened as of yet as well. My one guess is that for whatever reason, the current US 41 through Evansville never received another name, such as "Blah Blah Parkway or Whoever Highway".  That road is so ingrained as Highway 41, that it would take generations to quit calling it that.

Life in Paradise

They might move US 41 over, but I'm guessing that that may not happen until the I-69 bridge is completed (which under favorable circumstances would be about 10 years).  I could see the City of Evansville fighting this tooth and nail due to the decaying road base especially under the area north of Pigeon Creek.  That concrete base out of town is well over 50 to 60 years old and has to be crumbling under layers of blacktop and heavy truck traffic.

On a similar vein, I'm surprised that Indiana has not moved some of the local roads (such as SR 62) over to i-69 and then multiplexed the Lloyd Expressway to drop about 5 miles from their maintenance  list.  They have been dropping state routes through towns all through the state.  At some time I expect there to be some push back unless there was some sort of deal that the local municipalities would receive some additional funds for the transfer.  I think it stinks for those unfamiliar with the areas and trying to find their way around (and not relying on GPS).

ATLRedSoxFan

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on August 27, 2016, 09:15:10 AM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on August 27, 2016, 02:32:34 AM
Seems like I read the Natcher Parkway is supposed to be designated as I-565 and the Audobon will be I-369.,Only because that pesky stub in Evansville  and whether or not they were going to tag that as I-169.., But that could have changed. It's been years since I lived in Owensboro, but it kind of makes sense. Like I said, that could have changed.Seems like I read on the board that Indiana  is not even sure the stub will be signed or secret desiganation.

I have a feeling - just a gut feeling - that 169 will be used in Kentucky for the remaining section of the Pennyrile Parkway from I-24 near Hopkinsville to the WK/I-69 junction.  I also have a feeling that INDOT, once they're done jacking around with repaving 41, will do what they've done elsewhere in the state and loop 41 around over I-69 and I-64, turning what's now 41 over to Evansville and Vanderburgh County. It's a hunch, but look at Ft. Wayne, Lafayette and Indy (just to name a few), and it makes sense, even if it doesn't really make sense.

(EDIT: I've been thinking this would be what happens ever since they changed Business 41/Fares Avenue to "Old Business 41." Sort of makes me think the Evansville/Vanderburgh Co. folks might intend to refer to the current highway as Business 41. I would.)
Totally makes sense. But let's not forget, Kentucky is a total pain in the ass to Indiana.Kentucky will get the bridge built with Indiana kicking in a few bucks and sheepishly saying"I helped". 41 will be 41 in one form or another.I-69 will be it's own animal.

JMoses24

#61
Quote from: Life in Paradise on July 12, 2016, 11:40:50 AM
I don't know why someone in Kentucky hasn't suggested to run I-71 down I-65 from Louisville to the Western KY Parkway and then run it down to I-69 with the option of sending it down the southern Pennyrile to I-24 at Hopkinsville if they wanted to keep that a 2d rather than an X24 spur.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2016, 12:27:59 PM
You could actually route it over I-265 to get rid of some of the concurrancy. The problem is you would have a road to everywhere that went nowhere first.  Why drive from Nashville to Cinncinnati via Hopkinsvile?

That's a route that looks something like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/4MjEu29w4KT2

I wouldn't have a problem with I-71 ending at I-69, if that's what would result from I-71 being routed down the Pennyrile. And of course, this would result in the grid being violated TWICE by I-71 (WEST of 65 in Kentucky, EAST of 75 on the Ohio side).

Of course, if you DID route I-71 down the Pennyrile, then it would be marked as "Nashville Alternate Route via I-24" as far north as the I-65/71 split... not that it'd be much better with over one hour difference between just going down 65 and a "new I-71".

sparker

Quote from: JMoses24 on August 29, 2016, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on July 12, 2016, 11:40:50 AM
I don't know why someone in Kentucky hasn't suggested to run I-71 down I-65 from Louisville to the Western KY Parkway and then run it down to I-69 with the option of sending it down the southern Pennyrile to I-24 at Hopkinsville if they wanted to keep that a 2d rather than an X24 spur.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2016, 12:27:59 PM
You could actually route it over I-265 to get rid of some of the concurrancy. The problem is you would have a road to everywhere that went nowhere first.  Why drive from Nashville to Cinncinnati via Hopkinsvile?

That's a route that looks something like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/4MjEu29w4KT2

I wouldn't have a problem with I-71 ending at I-69, if that's what would result from I-71 being routed down the Pennyrile. And of course, this would result in the grid being violated TWICE by I-71 (WEST of 65 in Kentucky, EAST of 75 on the Ohio side).

Of course, if you DID route I-71 down the Pennyrile, then it would be marked as "Nashville Alternate Route via I-24" as far north as the I-65/71 split... not that it'd be much better with over one hour difference between just going down 65 and a "new I-71".
If one were to give up on the idea that the Bluegrass parkway will ever connect to an Interstate at its east end, then the idea of multiplexing I-71 down I-65 to Elizabethtown (by whatever Louisville-area means that KYDOT selects) and then over the WKY to I-69 isn't a half-bad notion.  But I'd end I-71 there; rather than gratuitously turn it south (by another set of costly flyover ramps, no doubt) onto the Pennyrile, let the southern Pennyrile be a 3di (x24,x69).  If ever I-69 becomes the major interregional/international arterial its most ardent backers project, then the extended I-71 would be a very logical "branch" for traffic bound to Ohio and NE points beyond.   

aboges26

Quote from: sparker on August 29, 2016, 01:30:34 AM
Quote from: JMoses24 on August 29, 2016, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on July 12, 2016, 11:40:50 AM
I don't know why someone in Kentucky hasn't suggested to run I-71 down I-65 from Louisville to the Western KY Parkway and then run it down to I-69 with the option of sending it down the southern Pennyrile to I-24 at Hopkinsville if they wanted to keep that a 2d rather than an X24 spur.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2016, 12:27:59 PM
You could actually route it over I-265 to get rid of some of the concurrancy. The problem is you would have a road to everywhere that went nowhere first.  Why drive from Nashville to Cinncinnati via Hopkinsvile?

That's a route that looks something like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/4MjEu29w4KT2

I wouldn't have a problem with I-71 ending at I-69, if that's what would result from I-71 being routed down the Pennyrile. And of course, this would result in the grid being violated TWICE by I-71 (WEST of 65 in Kentucky, EAST of 75 on the Ohio side).

Of course, if you DID route I-71 down the Pennyrile, then it would be marked as "Nashville Alternate Route via I-24" as far north as the I-65/71 split... not that it'd be much better with over one hour difference between just going down 65 and a "new I-71".
If one were to give up on the idea that the Bluegrass parkway will ever connect to an Interstate at its east end, then the idea of multiplexing I-71 down I-65 to Elizabethtown (by whatever Louisville-area means that KYDOT selects) and then over the WKY to I-69 isn't a half-bad notion.  But I'd end I-71 there; rather than gratuitously turn it south (by another set of costly flyover ramps, no doubt) onto the Pennyrile, let the southern Pennyrile be a 3di (x24,x69).  If ever I-69 becomes the major interregional/international arterial its most ardent backers project, then the extended I-71 would be a very logical "branch" for traffic bound to Ohio and NE points beyond.

I was surprised to notice how nicely an extended I-71 would parallel I-81  :clap:

The Ghostbuster

I think Interstate 71's existing terminus is fine the way it is. I know I'm going fictional, but I'd give number the reminder of the Western Kentucky Parkway Interstate 2-4-6 or 869. What do the rest of you think?

amroad17

Why not just keep it the WK Parkway?  The road is fine as is.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

paulthemapguy

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2016, 04:35:47 PM
I think Interstate 71's existing terminus is fine the way it is. I know I'm going fictional, but I'd give number the reminder of the Western Kentucky Parkway Interstate 2-4-6 or 869. What do the rest of you think?

I've played around with the ideas of the number 56 or 48.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

Avalanchez71


dvferyance

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 26, 2016, 04:35:47 PM
I think Interstate 71's existing terminus is fine the way it is. I know I'm going fictional, but I'd give number the reminder of the Western Kentucky Parkway Interstate 2-4-6 or 869. What do the rest of you think?
I-56 would make the most sense to me. In fact I think it was the one Kentucky Parkway that could have gotten an interstate upgrade many years ago because it's the only one that ends at an interstate on both sides.

The Ghostbuster

The Interstate 56 designation might work ... in Fictional Highways.

wdcrft63

Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 26, 2016, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
So will this get approved by FHWA as SPUR I-65 like I-69 was approved as I-69, I-69C, and I-69E?
AASHTO will have to be heard from on the proper number for this new interstate route. (North Carolina's experience recent ly is that AASHTO won't necessarily approve the number the state requests!) Does anyone know if Kentucky will file a request for a number at the next AASHTO meeting in November?
Kentucky did not submit any request for the I-65 spur to the November meeting. North Carolina did submit a request for an interstate designation (I-587) for US 264 from Zebulon (east of Raleigh) to Greenville. This request was denied, possibly indicating a new level of resistance by AASHTO to requests of this kind. Kentucky needs to take a careful look at this before putting in a request.

mvak36

Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2016, 05:08:49 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 26, 2016, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
So will this get approved by FHWA as SPUR I-65 like I-69 was approved as I-69, I-69C, and I-69E?
AASHTO will have to be heard from on the proper number for this new interstate route. (North Carolina's experience recent ly is that AASHTO won't necessarily approve the number the state requests!) Does anyone know if Kentucky will file a request for a number at the next AASHTO meeting in November?
Kentucky did not submit any request for the I-65 spur to the November meeting. North Carolina did submit a request for an interstate designation (I-587) for US 264 from Zebulon (east of Raleigh) to Greenville. This request was denied, possibly indicating a new level of resistance by AASHTO to requests of this kind. Kentucky needs to take a careful look at this before putting in a request.

Did they already have their meeting? Where are you finding this info? Thanks in advance.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

LM117

#72
Quote from: mvak36 on October 26, 2016, 05:44:38 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2016, 05:08:49 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 26, 2016, 06:43:48 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
So will this get approved by FHWA as SPUR I-65 like I-69 was approved as I-69, I-69C, and I-69E?
AASHTO will have to be heard from on the proper number for this new interstate route. (North Carolina's experience recent ly is that AASHTO won't necessarily approve the number the state requests!) Does anyone know if Kentucky will file a request for a number at the next AASHTO meeting in November?
Kentucky did not submit any request for the I-65 spur to the November meeting. North Carolina did submit a request for an interstate designation (I-587) for US 264 from Zebulon (east of Raleigh) to Greenville. This request was denied, possibly indicating a new level of resistance by AASHTO to requests of this kind. Kentucky needs to take a careful look at this before putting in a request.

Did they already have their meeting? Where are you finding this info? Thanks in advance.

Page 48: http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf

AASHTO's numbering committee met this month. AASHTO will still have their main meeting in November.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

hbelkins

Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2016, 05:08:49 PM
Kentucky did not submit any request for the I-65 spur to the November meeting. North Carolina did submit a request for an interstate designation (I-587) for US 264 from Zebulon (east of Raleigh) to Greenville. This request was denied, possibly indicating a new level of resistance by AASHTO to requests of this kind. Kentucky needs to take a careful look at this before putting in a request.

I'm getting the feeling that this designation will be written into law by Congress. And I don't think it will be Spur I-65, given its length, but an x65 instead.

And why should Kentucky take a careful look before putting in a request? Putting in a request doesn't cost anything.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

LM117

Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2016, 11:00:36 PMAnd why should Kentucky take a careful look before putting in a request? Putting in a request doesn't cost anything.

Not to mention that AASHTO's reasons for rejecting Future I-587 in NC are total BS. Take a look at their reasons on page 47 in the link I posted above if you want a good laugh. There's a good chance FHWA will overrule AASHTO there and will probably do the same here, should Kentucky submit a request to AASHTO and get denied.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette



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