Print

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

[codyg1985]

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Has there ever been a project manager at the national level to handle an interstate project that spans multiple states or any other infrastructure project?

Maybe I-49 should be handled in this way, too.

[Rick Powell]

Having a dedicated FHWA Project Manager is a legitimate management strategy and has been used on several projects in the past.  On a bi-state project either a PM is appointed and works with both states' FHWA staff; or, one of the state FHWA divisions takes it on with its regular staff as the lead, with the other state a FHWA cooperating partner.

[ShawnP]

If having a FHWA Project Manager speeds it up all the better. Hopefully by 2015 the drive is ready.

[sr641]

I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time

[Alps]

I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time

we dont care because you dont use punctuation or grammer

[truejd]

The correct spelling is "grammar".

[Alps]

The correct spelling is "grammar".

that was my point

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

The correct spelling is "grammar".

that was my point

There were no points .... in your posts

[Grzrd]

The correct spelling is "grammar".

that was my point

There were no points .... in your posts

Speaking of hammering home a point, Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:

New Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is calling for increased cooperation between his city of Evansville and Henderson on issues ranging from economic development to establishing a mass transit connection between the cities .... "Over the years, we've become much more aware of the importance of approaching economic development from a more regional standpoint," he said .... "I think we are at the point where we can step back and say, OK, what's the next step? What's the next logical phase to take this to our region, and not just four counties in southwestern Indiana, so our region — the Tri-state — can truly benefit," Winnecke said .... Meanwhile, concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville." ....

In other words, work like crazy on both fronts to get the Indiana and Kentucky delegations to push hard for the bridge.

[mgk920]

The correct spelling is "grammar".

that was my point

There were no points .... in your posts

And never use apostrophe's in your plural's.

Mike

[NE2]

in less your a greengrocer

[sr641]

I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.

[vdeane]

The bridge isn't to interstate standards.  And though it's on the level where I would say "just use it and not care", I don't think the FHWA agrees with me.  Plus the road on either side is just a surface street, and it would probably cost more to upgrade than to build a new alignment.

[adt1982]

I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.

Oh, I don't know.  It might be nice to have a bridge that actually has shoulders and meets interstate standards.

[RoadWarrior56]

Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.

[hbelkins]

Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.

I drove across the bridges when they had the 3+1 configuration going for repairs a few years ago. The backups on both sides of the bridge were lengthy, even though there were still four lanes available for travel. Anytime there is some sort of incident on the bridge or on either side, especially the south side, I hear traffic gets dog-knotted.

[tdindy88]

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.

[mukade]

I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

Personally, I don't see why this changeover to I-69 shouldn't happen when the new terrain I-69 to Crane is opened. Other than new shields, mile markers, and exit numbers not much would need to be done. It would be pretty inexpensive.

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.

[sd72667]

I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

Personally, I don't see why this changeover to I-69 shouldn't happen when the new terrain I-69 to Crane is opened. Other than new shields, mile markers, and exit numbers not much would need to be done. It would be pretty inexpensive.

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.

I think once the link from EV to Bloominton is open, there will be more movement to get a bridge finished right around the Green River Rd exit to the south. I'm sure they will obviously stay west where the Green River flows into the Ohio River. After looking at Google Maps, it's a straight shot to the Pennyrile from I-164, almost all farm fields. I hope it will be finished by the time Bloomington-Indy is finished.

[Alps]

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.

I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.

[mukade]

Back in the 1970s when many Interstates were still being built, some states liberally signed the gaps with "TO I-xx" (where that was equal to or was the primary designation). The entire stretch of I-69 from Indy to Bloomington and from Evansville to Madisonville could be signed that way. For that matter, it could be signed as such down to Memphis.

I guess it comes down to the question of whether or not the corridor is close enough to being a viable long distance alternative to existing Interstates. The section of SR 37 in Indy and US 41 in Henderson are slow and congested, but they are also pretty short. I would say a case could be made to for that strategy if it is allowed. Is there any guidance on that? Did that require FHWA approval?

If that is not allowed, then I can see the argument for leaving I-164 as is, but am still not convinced a long spur to the north designated I-69 and a shorter spur to the south marked as I-164 is any better than the entire 115 miles or so having the same number.

[vdeane]

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.

I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.

I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.

[Alps]

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.

I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.

I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.

But that's different, because there's no planned extension of the highway. In this case, the rest of I-69 is coming along soon anyway. You'll have to change all the signs to reflect that the route continues past Evansville. You'll have to change mile markers and exit numbers because the new route won't hook around in a J shape.

[Grzrd]

During yesterday's announcement about I-69 signs going up in Kentucky this fall, Gov. Beshear was asked about the Ohio River Bridge.  Basically, he provided no real news other than speculation about the creation of a new authority to figure out financing for the project:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/01/no-headline---ev_i69/

... However, the governor couldn’t forecast when the toughest portion of Kentucky’s I-69 project — financing and building a bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville, estimated a few years ago to cost $1.4 billion — will be completed or even begin.
Beshear said leaders in the Henderson-Evansville area likely will establish a special authority to develop a financing plan, as is already taking place for a planned pair of Ohio River bridges at Louisville ...

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge ... emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges

In this opinion piece, representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:

This month, I-69 advocacy groups from Indiana and Kentucky — Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky (C-LINK) — will meet in an annual joint session, bringing together community leaders from both sides of the river in a continued effort to advance the project that will provide new opportunities to all eight states in the I-69 corridor .... While the two groups have much to celebrate, their work will continue on a critical, yet still missing link: a new I-69 Ohio River bridge connecting Evansville, Ind., and Henderson, Ky.
At this time we are covered by two bridges, one northbound and one southbound, between Evansville and Henderson. These vital links see heavy traffic daily from local commuters, local business traffic and cross state commerce.
In the months and years ahead, as I-69 is completed in Indiana and Kentucky, this traffic will increase.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Twin Bridges have served our communities well. The east bridge was completed in 1932. The west bridge was open to traffic in 1966.
As sturdy and durable as these bridges have proven to be, they are getting old and will be further strained by increased I-69 traffic.
A new bridge project of this scope takes years and even decades to complete. As the bridges continue to age, interstate highway traffic will travel the bridges and through Henderson's U.S. 41 until our two states prioritize the identification of funding and construction of a new link.
The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.
The Evansville and Henderson metropolitan areas need this vital link to support the demands of a new interstate, provide relief to aging bridges and enhance the economic vitality of our region.

The advocacy groups for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge seem to be pursuing a steady public relations campaign for construction of the bridge.  Both INDOT and KYTC still have a lot on their respective plates, but it does seem like now would be a good time to at least form a bi-state authority and begin the process for revisiting the environmental review process.

[Grzrd]

In this opinion piece, representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:

The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.

David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial. He also injects a sense of urgency to do so because of perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:

Every once in a while I read something in the paper that I'd like to add an exclamation mark to. That was the case last Sunday when a guest column appeared concerning Interstate 69.
The point was: Now's the time to get moving on a new I-69 bridge between Henderson and Evansville.
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done. ....
They called on the two states' transportation departments "to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval."
It takes a long, long time to get a bridge studied, funded, studied some more, designed, studied a little more and finally built. The sooner we get started, the better.
There's another reason to act now.
With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.
Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....