Kentucky questions

[Michael in Philly]

Mods - please move if appropriate....

I never spend any time in this area of the forum, so I apologize if this has already been addressed.  I just received the Kentucky official road map from the state department of tourism.  Undated, but there's a reference to 2010 events so presumably it's a 2010 or 2009 edition.

I notice "future I-69" written, very faintly, along the Pennyrile, Western Kentucky and Purchase parkways, and - surprisingly - "future I-69 spur" along the Audubon and Natcher (doesn't seem to go south of the Western Kentucky Parkway).

One thing I didn't expect was that the segment of the Gene Snyder Freeway west of I-65 is NOT marked as 265.  Is that something I've never noticed before or is this new?

Backgrounds, comments, further info?  I didn't know, as I said, about the southwestern part of the Gene Snyder, or that there was a 69 spur.  Also didn't know a particular route had been chosen for 69, although at this point I tend to ignore "future" Interstates until they seem to actually be happening.

Thanks.

[mightyace]

One thing I didn't expect was that the segment of the Gene Snyder Freeway west of I-65 is NOT marked as 265.  Is that something I've never noticed before or is this new?

I've been driving on and/or by the Gene Snyder freeway in Louisville since 1994 and AFAIK, the I-265 designation has always ended at I-65 on both ends.

[Alps]

The 265 designation currently runs from 65 to 71, overlapping KY 841, which continues the freeway on either side. Of course, the plan one day is to make the whole thing 265.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

The 265 designation currently runs from 65 to 71, overlapping KY 841, which continues the freeway on either side. Of course, the plan one day is to make the whole thing 265.

Has there ever been a plan for 265 to connect back to 64 from the south?

[InterstateNG]

This looks like a good place to ask.

I'm considering a drive from Michigan to Texas in the fall, a drive I've done before and was looking at I-65 -> Western Kentucky Parkway -> I-24 -> Purchase Parkway -> US-51 -> I-155 -> I-55 to West Memphis as opposed to I-65 -> I-40 as I've done previously.  Opinions?  Advice?

[hbelkins]

Mods - please move if appropriate....

I never spend any time in this area of the forum, so I apologize if this has already been addressed.  I just received the Kentucky official road map from the state department of tourism.  Undated, but there's a reference to 2010 events so presumably it's a 2010 or 2009 edition.

I notice "future I-69" written, very faintly, along the Pennyrile, Western Kentucky and Purchase parkways, and - surprisingly - "future I-69 spur" along the Audubon and Natcher (doesn't seem to go south of the Western Kentucky Parkway).

One thing I didn't expect was that the segment of the Gene Snyder Freeway west of I-65 is NOT marked as 265.  Is that something I've never noticed before or is this new?

Backgrounds, comments, further info?  I didn't know, as I said, about the southwestern part of the Gene Snyder, or that there was a 69 spur.  Also didn't know a particular route had been chosen for 69, although at this point I tend to ignore "future" Interstates until they seem to actually be happening.

Thanks.

You got a 2010 map. The 2011's are expected to come out later this month.

I-69 has been identified to use the Pennyrile Parkway south from the spot where the route that will connect the required new bridges to I-164 in Indiana to Kentucky's parkway system will run, to the Western Kentucky Parkway; then the WK Parkway west to I-24; then overlap I-24 west to the Purchase Parkway; then the Purchase Parkway south to Tennessee. There will be a few modifications required to bring the route up to modern interstate standards, mostly median work, lengthening some merging entrance ramp tapers, and modifying the cloverleaf interchanges where the toll booths used to be. The Audubon Parkway, it is hoped, will become I-169.

(It should be noted that the existing parkways are probably closer to modern interstate standards as they currently are than is, say, I-70 from Washington to New Stanton).

The Gene Snyder Freeway (originally called the Jefferson Freeway) was initially numbered as KY 841 and built in sections. When it was completed the portion between I-65 and I-71 got an I-265 designation that will eventually connect with I-265 in Indiana once the oft-delayed East End Bridge is built.

Has there ever been a plan for 265 to connect back to 64 from the south?

AFAIK, that has never been seriously under consideration by any officials. Float that boat in "Fictional Roads."  

[hbelkins]

This looks like a good place to ask.

I'm considering a drive from Michigan to Texas in the fall, a drive I've done before and was looking at I-65 -> Western Kentucky Parkway -> I-24 -> Purchase Parkway -> US-51 -> I-155 -> I-55 to West Memphis as opposed to I-65 -> I-40 as I've done previously.  Opinions?  Advice?

The route you mention is a bit longer than taking I-65 and I-40, but I think it has its advantages. Less traffic, you don't have to go through Nashville or Memphis, and you don't have that agonizingly long drive along I-40 in Tennessee. It would be the route I would prefer. My wife just drove from Kentucky to Dallas and she said the condition of I-65 near Nashville and I-40 between Nashville and Memphis is awful -- pothole central. That might be fixed by fall.

You'll run into a few traffic lights in Union City, Tenn., and there can be some distance between services, but if you plan well that won't be an issue.

[Alps]

Has there ever been a plan for 265 to connect back to 64 from the south?

AFAIK, that has never been seriously under consideration by any officials. Float that boat in "Fictional Roads." 

Nah, that discussion belongs here.  I was under the impression that it was ultimately intended to - what's the point of having a Pacman-shaped beltway?  Obviously the northeastern bridge is being considered in the nearer term, but I'm pretty sure the ultimate goal is a full belt.

[ShawnP]

Since I live west of Louisville in Harrison County, Indiana. This western loop of I-265 would go thru this area. I wouldn't be oppossed to it as it would save some time for trips to Nashville and Bowling Green. That said Louisville has had a hard enough time with the east end bridge so a western loop would be impossible to get done.

[hbelkins]

Since I live west of Louisville in Harrison County, Indiana. This western loop of I-265 would go thru this area. I wouldn't be oppossed to it as it would save some time for trips to Nashville and Bowling Green. That said Louisville has had a hard enough time with the east end bridge so a western loop would be impossible to get done.

Maybe not. There aren't any rich NIMBYs in that part of Jefferson County.

[InterstateNG]

This looks like a good place to ask.

I'm considering a drive from Michigan to Texas in the fall, a drive I've done before and was looking at I-65 -> Western Kentucky Parkway -> I-24 -> Purchase Parkway -> US-51 -> I-155 -> I-55 to West Memphis as opposed to I-65 -> I-40 as I've done previously.  Opinions?  Advice?

The route you mention is a bit longer than taking I-65 and I-40, but I think it has its advantages. Less traffic, you don't have to go through Nashville or Memphis, and you don't have that agonizingly long drive along I-40 in Tennessee. It would be the route I would prefer. My wife just drove from Kentucky to Dallas and she said the condition of I-65 near Nashville and I-40 between Nashville and Memphis is awful -- pothole central. That might be fixed by fall.

You'll run into a few traffic lights in Union City, Tenn., and there can be some distance between services, but if you plan well that won't be an issue.

Yes, that stretch of I-40 from Nashville to Little Rock is agonizing, especially once you get into the Mississippi Embayment.  I liked crossing the river at Memphis, but it's not going to break my heart if I miss it.

Thanks for the help!

[wriddle082]

Since I live west of Louisville in Harrison County, Indiana. This western loop of I-265 would go thru this area. I wouldn't be oppossed to it as it would save some time for trips to Nashville and Bowling Green. That said Louisville has had a hard enough time with the east end bridge so a western loop would be impossible to get done.

Maybe not. There aren't any rich NIMBYs in that part of Jefferson County.

Considering that KTC tied in Greenbelt Hwy (KY 1934) with the stub ending of Gene Snyder (KY 841), it would appear that Kentucky has no real incentive to build a bridge unless Indiana wants to pay for it as well as the resulting new interchange with KY 1934.

Indiana would gain everything, with potential economic development for Harrison Co. by making it more accessible.  Unfortunately, just think of how much more of US 40 will get decommissioned as a result of adding more I-265 mileage to the InDOT system!  Then there's the interchange with I-64 that will need a complete rebuild... 

Maybe if InDOT would agree to totally fund the twin span for the I-65 JFK Bridge, KTC would agree to take care of the SW I-265 bridge?  Oh wait, a couple more miles of US 40 would disappear...  DOH!

[Michael in Philly]

....Unfortunately, just think of how much more of US 40 will get decommissioned as a result of adding more I-265 mileage to the InDOT system!...

??

[hbelkins]

....Unfortunately, just think of how much more of US 40 will get decommissioned as a result of adding more I-265 mileage to the InDOT system!...

??

Indiana has a statutory cap on the amount of state-maintained highway mileage there can be. If more state-maintained mileage is built, the state would have to turn over an equivalent amount of mileage to some local government body. Indiana just moved part of US 40 in Terre Haute to I-70 and turned over maintenance of that portion to the local government.

[Michael in Philly]

....Unfortunately, just think of how much more of US 40 will get decommissioned as a result of adding more I-265 mileage to the InDOT system!...

??

Indiana has a statutory cap on the amount of state-maintained highway mileage there can be. If more state-maintained mileage is built, the state would have to turn over an equivalent amount of mileage to some local government body. Indiana just moved part of US 40 in Terre Haute to I-70 and turned over maintenance of that portion to the local government.

Strange.  Does any other state do that?

[agentsteel53]

Strange.  Does any other state do that?

I have no idea, but it seems like the world's second-stupidest idea, behind California's allowing the legislature to dictate route numbers. 

congressworms should not be trusted with anything more important than the expulsion of their own fecal wastes.

[Michael in Philly]

Strange.  Does any other state do that?

I have no idea, but it seems like the world's second-stupidest idea, behind California's allowing the legislature to dictate route numbers. 

Or not responding to the census? 

[agentsteel53]

Or not responding to the census? 

what does that have to do with this thread?

[rawmustard]

I have no idea, but [INDOT's mileage cap] seems like the world's second-stupidest idea, behind California's allowing the legislature to dictate route numbers. 

The mileage cap is more than likely a way to make sure the state government doesn't overextend itself when it comes to road maintenance and to have counties and municipalities shoulder some of the burden. This is in stark contrast to an agency such as PennDOT, who for whatever reason has road mileage (the quadrant routes) that should be in a county or local system.

[Michael in Philly]

Or not responding to the census? 

what does that have to do with this thread?

Nothing whatsoever.  But I'd just read that on another thread and had to control myself there.

[Henry]

Has there ever been a plan for 265 to connect back to 64 from the south?

AFAIK, that has never been seriously under consideration by any officials. Float that boat in "Fictional Roads." 

Nah, that discussion belongs here.  I was under the impression that it was ultimately intended to - what's the point of having a Pacman-shaped beltway?  Obviously the northeastern bridge is being considered in the nearer term, but I'm pretty sure the ultimate goal is a full belt.

I do hope that they somehow find a way to finish the thing, one way or another.

I have no idea, but [INDOT's mileage cap] seems like the world's second-stupidest idea, behind California's allowing the legislature to dictate route numbers. 

The mileage cap is more than likely a way to make sure the state government doesn't overextend itself when it comes to road maintenance and to have counties and municipalities shoulder some of the burden. This is in stark contrast to an agency such as PennDOT, who for whatever reason has road mileage (the quadrant routes) that should be in a county or local system.

As for Indiana's mileage cap, it actually is THE stupidest idea ever, with Georgia's proposal to get rid of driver's licenses altogether coming in a close second. I've been accustomed to California's route-numbering rules, so I can live with that.

[agentsteel53]

As for Indiana's mileage cap, it actually is THE stupidest idea ever, with Georgia's proposal to get rid of driver's licenses altogether coming in a close second. I've been accustomed to California's route-numbering rules, so I can live with that.

did you know that in California there's an entirely separate, and usually completely unrelated set of numbers that are used in maintenance, internal record-keeping, etc... ?  They're called Legislative Route Numbers because it's your friendly local elected slime who is responsible for setting these numbers.  Imagine an entire state run by Shusters.



where is Route 64, you may ask?  It's US-60/70.  Of course!  How intuitive! 

[NE2]

They haven't done that since the 60s. I believe Oregon is the only state that still has such a dual numbering system.

[mightyace]

Imagine an entire state run by Shusters.

Ow, the pain!!!!  Must... tear... out... brain...

[mukade]

....Unfortunately, just think of how much more of US 40 will get decommissioned as a result of adding more I-265 mileage to the InDOT system!...

??

Indiana has a statutory cap on the amount of state-maintained highway mileage there can be. If more state-maintained mileage is built, the state would have to turn over an equivalent amount of mileage to some local government body. Indiana just moved part of US 40 in Terre Haute to I-70 and turned over maintenance of that portion to the local government.

Not quite true as was discussed in another thread:

INDOT web site on the "Trivia" page at http://www.in.gov/indot/3250.htm:
   
    Q: Approximately how many lane miles of highway are maintained by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)?

    A: INDOT is responsible for about 11,300 centerline miles

Because the cap is 12,000 miles that leaves a cushion of 700 miles, and there has been at least one new state road built with no accompanying decommissioning (SR 37 reroute north of I-64 with old SR 37 becoming SR 237)