News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 Ohio River Bridge

Started by truejd, August 05, 2010, 10:32:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


SSF

Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Was not a fun time to travel that stretch of US-41, not that there ever is.

US 41

Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

tdindy88

Sure, once those bridges are brought up to interstate standards.

hbelkins

Quote from: US 41 on September 28, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

US 41

Quote from: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 28, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

Revive 755

^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.

NE2

Quote from: Revive 755 on September 29, 2014, 08:25:31 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
It doesn't need to get a direct ramp. But FHWA.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

vdeane

Quote from: US 41 on September 29, 2014, 06:46:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 28, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Those were either grandfathered in when the interstate system was started or were built to older standards.  New interstates (even using existing pavement) do not get grandfathered in.  I think a road needs to be upgraded for a new interstate even if it already has an interstate designation (see: I-81 in Binghamton).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

NE2

Quote from: NE2 on September 29, 2014, 08:31:19 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 29, 2014, 08:25:31 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
It doesn't need to get a direct ramp. But FHWA.

PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

US 41

Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 12:56:30 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 29, 2014, 06:46:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 28, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Those were either grandfathered in when the interstate system was started or were built to older standards.  New interstates (even using existing pavement) do not get grandfathered in.  I think a road needs to be upgraded for a new interstate even if it already has an interstate designation (see: I-81 in Binghamton).

Well there should be an exception here. A billion dollars isn't exactly easy to come by all because there's not a shoulder on the existing bridges.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

silverback1065

#461
I think the real reason is the old bridges are not worth fixing for an interstate and they would like to have multiple crossings

froggie

QuotePS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.

NE2

Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
QuotePS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.


PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

US 41

Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
QuotePS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.


PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.

And so were the US 41 bridges.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

vdeane

When was the Mississippi I-69 section designated?  I know the FHWA was once a lot looser with standards when designating interstates on an existing road than they are now.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Grzrd

#466
Quote from: Grzrd on January 23, 2014, 05:23:00 PM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan. The Project Listing section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)
Quote from: Grzrd on February 27, 2014, 09:09:26 AM
Kyndle is a new organization born of the merger of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce and the Northwest Kentucky Forward regional economic development organization:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/dec/20/merger-of-chamber-nwkf-into-kyndle-now-official/
(bottom quote from I-69 in KY thread)

In this Comment, Kyndle urges the Kentucky General Assembly to move the availability of funding for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") from 2018 to 2016*, supports state legislation that would enable public-private partnerships in Kentucky, and urges federal entities to give I-69 the proper designations to enable it to receive significant federal money:

Quote
Kyndle applauds the states of Kentucky and Indiana for continuing to work diligently toward the completion of Interstate 69 in our region.
We urge the General Assembly to protect funds allocated for I-69 construction in our state and to continue to add the funding necessary to achieve its creation. We applaud the amount of support I-69 has in the road plan, including $2.5 million for an environmental impact study (EIS) for an I-69 Ohio River crossing. Kyndle asks legislators to work to move the availability of that EIS money from 2018 to 2016. We also ask legislators to work with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to assure a long-term, toll-free route across the Ohio for local residents that would be both a compliment [sic] to the new I-69 bridge and provide the redundancy this region needs to assure that accidents such as barge collisions into the bridge or natural disasters won't result in a shutdown of traffic between Evansville and Henderson.
Kyndle urges the General Assembly to create a revenue model for the state road fund that would produce more consistent funding for infrastructure projects and make it easier for KYTC to plan for the state's future transportation needs.
Kyndle strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and include it in the new National Freight Network list.
Kyndle supports legislation enabling Kentucky to fully utilize public-private partnerships (P3) to complete infrastructure projects of all types and find more cost-efficient, effective ways to perform government functions.

They seem resigned to the probability that the I-69 bridge will be tolled; as a result, they want to ensure that at least one of the US 41 bridges will be in operation for a long time as a toll-free facility.

edit

*
Kyndle may be confused; as reflected in the top above quote, the funding for the EIS is intended for an intermediate US 41 solution for the Ohio River crossing before construction of the I-69 bridge.

hbelkins

Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

codyg1985

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2015, 09:00:48 PM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.

I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

US 41

Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2015, 09:00:48 PM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

hbelkins

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:31:33 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

Quote from: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

silverback1065

Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:31:33 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

Quote from: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

I think they should maintain both crossings as 4 lane crossings.  traffic would decrease on 41, but would it be low enough to downgrade to just 2 lanes over that river?

tdindy88

Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.

NE2

Quote from: tdindy88 on February 09, 2015, 07:10:57 PM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Pete from Boston


Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:31:33 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

Quote from: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

This is the first I have heard of an interim 41 bridge replacement.  Has this actually been proposed?  Particularly given talk I've heard here that there was recent rehab work done there, this would seem to make sense... to nobody.



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.