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

jnewkirk77

#275
OK, folks ... I'm working on this to submit as an op-ed piece here in Owensboro and perhaps elsewhere, if the need arises.  Could any of you critique this to help me out?  I'd GREATLY appreciate it!  --Jacob Newkirk

Recently, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne raised some eyebrows (and more than a few tempers) by suggesting that the long-settled and already-under-construction route of Interstate 69 be moved from its line from Madisonville through Henderson to Evansville to a route including the Western Kentucky Parkway, William H. Natcher Parkway and U.S. 231.

Now, mind you, I'm an Owensboro resident and proud to be. I've seen and appreciated our progress since Payne became mayor.

But this is just a bad idea.

First of all, the road is there, all that's needed is a bridge.  Owensboro already has two crossings of the Ohio River; Evansville and Henderson have one.  There is no redundancy should something dire happen to one of the aging Twin Bridges – and at 82 and 48 years old, the possibility of that seems ever more likely as they continue to get older.

Mr. Payne suggests that $1 billion could be saved by going his way.  And he might be right – but only to a point.  That's just in construction costs.  What about the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers would waste by following his well-out-of-the-way route instead of the road that's either already Interstate-ready or soon will be once the committed projects in Hopkins, Webster and Henderson counties are done?

It just doesn't make good sense.

All this proposal has done is anger our neighbors in Henderson and Evansville, whom we should be counting as our friends, by trying to undo what's long been a done deal.

The thing is, despite the fact that I-69 will eventually have a spur to Owensboro via the Audubon Parkway – it's been planned for years and is in fact signed as a "Future I-69 Spur" – and while many (including our own chamber of commerce) argue that we have to have an Interstate NOW, it could be argued that we really don't need an Interstate highway at all.

HUH???

You read that correctly.  Owensboro sits at the crossroads of two long-distance U.S. highways – 60 and 231.  To familiarize you, U.S. 231 runs from near Chicago down to Florida, over 900 miles in all, and it happens to parallel the Natcher parkway between Owensboro and Bowling Green.  For its part, U.S. 60 traverses 2,670 miles of this nation from Arizona to Virginia. It is parallel to the Audubon Parkway between Henderson and Owensboro.

So why don't we "move" those designations to the Natcher and Audubon?  (And, in the case of 60, my proposal would be to add it to the Kentucky 425 by-pass of Henderson, for continuity purposes.)

It wouldn't cost nearly as much as conversion to an Interstate, and could be accomplished with just the "stroke-of-a-pen" approvals of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), yet I feel the benefits would be nearly the same.  Indeed, it seems entirely possible that by "moving" 60 and 231 to the Audubon and Natcher, the cost would be mere thousands of dollars, and that merely for changing signage.

The existing roads could, as the original route of U.S. 41 from Madisonville to Henderson was, be tagged with the "Alternate" banner, be remade into business routes, or renumbered entirely.

It's the sort of "outside the box" thinking that we ought to be known for.  After all, we didn't have an Interstate when we landed Dana (now Metalsa), Toyotetsu Mid America and U.S. Bank; it seems to me that if we worked hard enough to show companies Owensboro's many other merits, they'd come here, Interstate or no ... just as these examples did.


EDITED 2:11 p.m. CT


mukade

Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn't even need an Interstate highway.

Although many people in this forum have taken that position, I think many corporations only consider sites on Interstates and most cities want the status that a red, white, and blue shield brings. So at best, it is very subjective to say that US highway designations are just as good, and I personally don't question why he would want an interstate designation on a highway in Owensboro. The questionable thing is the suggestion for a modified I-69 routing.

I also would say the end of your text might get too much in the weeds for most people.

codyg1985

^^ A good job on the op-ed piece, but, getting an interstate designation does help with industry recruiting. However, I don't know if they take into consideration whether that interstate is a 2di or a 3di. I would argue that the benefits would be the same from getting I-369 designated along the Audubon Parkway than rerouting I-69 or from the I-67 proposal. Huntsville, AL, where I live, is on a 3di as well (I-565), but it reaps the same benefits from an interstate designation than other areas that are along 2di interstates. I haven't heard of any industries not coming to Huntsville due to a lack of interstate access.

I do agree with you on moving US 231 onto the Natcher, but if the Audubon gets I-369, I'd leave US 60 where it is.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

jnewkirk77

Thanks for the input, guys.  I appreciate it!

The reason I'm not sold on "Owensboro has to have an Interstate" is because, quite honestly, I can sit out in front of my house and see and hear the evidence that we're doing OK without one.  Within a mile of my house, in the Mid-America Airpark, we have a Metalsa (formerly Dana) plant and Toyotetsu Mid America, both of which supply Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana in Princeton, Ind.; a biosciences research facility, and a decent-sized new complex with a few hundred workers for U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, one of three fairly sizable sites they have here.  And there are other businesses there, too.  Could we use more?  Absolutely. And we've got room. The problem is that Payne ought to be courting businesses instead of making us look like we've got no sense.

Quite honestly, I'm probably just venting about this ... but it needed to be put out there, IMHO.  The very idea he's proposing is just foolish. Damned foolish.

US 41

Quote from: mukade on February 27, 2014, 06:46:06 AM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn't even need an Interstate highway.

Although many people in this forum have taken that position, I think many corporations only consider sites on Interstates and most cities want the status that a red, white, and blue shield brings. So at best, it is very subjective to say that US highway designations are just as good, and I personally don't question why he would want an interstate designation on a highway in Owensboro. The questionable thing is the suggestion for a modified I-69 routing.

I also would say the end of your text might get too much in the weeds for most people.

Toyota built a plant in Princeton off of US 41. Companies will build their sites on any major highway. US 41 in Indiana is a major highway.
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

Brandon

Quote from: US 41 on February 27, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: mukade on February 27, 2014, 06:46:06 AM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn't even need an Interstate highway.

Although many people in this forum have taken that position, I think many corporations only consider sites on Interstates and most cities want the status that a red, white, and blue shield brings. So at best, it is very subjective to say that US highway designations are just as good, and I personally don't question why he would want an interstate designation on a highway in Owensboro. The questionable thing is the suggestion for a modified I-69 routing.

I also would say the end of your text might get too much in the weeds for most people.

Toyota built a plant in Princeton off of US 41. Companies will build their sites on any major highway. US 41 in Indiana is a major highway.

Quite frankly, not everything needs to be an interstate.  However, moving US-231 to the Green River Parkway (why should I care about Natcher?) and moving US-60 to the Audubon Parkway would be very good ideas.  I could never figure out why Kentucky never moved the US highways to the parkways after the tolls were removed.  The Western Kentucky Parkway and Blue Grass Parkway should be US-62, IMHO, as an example.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

hbelkins

As a former journalist and current PR person, I think you did a really good job.

However, you might want to mention that plans currently call for Owensboro to be served by a three-digit Interstate spur from I-69 and signage indicating such has been posted on the Audubon for years.

I really think the answer lies in getting FHWA to loosen its standards for what can be signed as an interstate. The Audubon and Natcher parkways and the US 60 bypass are a lot more modern than a lot of routes that are signed as interstates (I'm looking at you, I-68 Cumberland, I-70 New Stanton-Washington and I-83 Harrisburg-MD state line). That's an area where Rand Paul might have some influence. The average motorist isn't going to be able to tell the difference between I-69 or I-164 in Indiana vs. the existing Natcher or Audubon.

Fix the toll booth cloverleaf interchanges, slap some Interstate signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jnewkirk77

Brandon -- I'm in agreement that moving the parallel highways to the parkways just makes sense.  Quite honestly I don't know why it's never been discussed in-depth.  Seems like a no-brainer.

H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

hbelkins

Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Captain Jack

Quote from: codyg1985 on February 27, 2014, 06:49:56 AM
^^ A good job on the op-ed piece, but, getting an interstate designation does help with industry recruiting. However, I don't know if they take into consideration whether that interstate is a 2di or a 3di. I would argue that the benefits would be the same from getting I-369 designated along the Audubon Parkway than rerouting I-69 or from the I-67 proposal. Huntsville, AL, where I live, is on a 3di as well (I-565), but it reaps the same benefits from an interstate designation than other areas that are along 2di interstates. I haven't heard of any industries not coming to Huntsville due to a lack of interstate access.

I do agree with you on moving US 231 onto the Natcher, but if the Audubon gets I-369, I'd leave US 60 where it is.

As this has played out, I have thought of Huntsville a few times. With a 20 mile 3-di, Owensboro would be set up just like Huntsville, a city several times larger. I travel to Huntsville quite a bit, and can assure Mayor Ron that the city is doing quite well with a 3-di. In fact, once this is done, not only will Owensboro be linked to the interstate grid like Huntsville, they will actually have a better highway network than Huntsville. There is nothing going north/south out of Huntsville even remotely close to the Natcher and US 231 North through Southern Indiana...and there is no mainline east/west interstate 25 miles to the north like Owensboro has with I-64.  With two mainline interstates within 30 miles, a direct 3-di into the city, and the Natcher and US 231 North, Owensboro will actually have a very attractive highway network. Again, much better than the considerably larger and prosperous Huntsville.

As a regular reader of your old TV blog, the op-ed was well done as I expected. I agree with hb that I would play up the positives of the Audubon 3-di conversion.

Captain Jack

Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.

NE2

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".

silverback1065

Quote from: Captain Jack on February 28, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.

That's a great idea!

US 41

Quote from: silverback1065 on February 28, 2014, 11:30:03 AM
Quote from: Captain Jack on February 28, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.

That's a great idea!

I'll second that! That is probably one of the best ideas I've heard so far.
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

agentsteel53

I've always advocated for blue signs for freeways.  I remember running into the opposite problem during my first trip out to California.  I was on I-5 and running low on gas, so I thought "state route 4 looks important; it should have some services, no?" ... damn, another freeway!

as for expressways, make them color-coded as well.  green?  (Cal. would have to change their route shield for two-lane segments, then.  I am okay with this, having always liked the black and white shields.) 

that said, I would like arterials not signed as expressways.  traffic lights do not count as quality of service.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

jnewkirk77

Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

Good point ... hadn't really thought of that, but you're definitely right.

And this for Capt. Jack:  Thank you.  I've done a little more tweaking to the post above and hopefully it addresses things a little better.  I will be happy to hear otherwise if more needs to be done.

thefro

http://wkyufm.org/post/latest-tug-war-over-i-69-route-pits-owensboro-against-evansville-henderson

Pretty good article about the whole mess.

QuoteWinnecke, along with Kentucky's top transportation official, Mike Hancock are insistent that the previously charted and approved course for I-69 is set. They cite the millions that have already been spent on planning, research, studies and upgrades to roads.

Hancock, in fact, released the following written statement:

"The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does not plan to reroute Interstate 69 through Owensboro.  Deviating from the congressionally designated Interstate 69 corridor would prove costly and be difficult to implement.  The routes suggested through Owensboro are not compliant with federal interstate standards, nor is it the most direct and efficient route for motorists. We appreciate Mayor Payne's input on the project, but the Cabinet will continue on the course that has been set."

Payne says:
QuoteWherever the course of I-69 eventually ends up, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne doesn't appear to be giving up easily.

"We got time, I mean, it's 8-10 years before you even begin to talk about building a bridge. So, we have time to look at this.  If this is the right course, that was originally proposed, fine.  But if not, then maybe we need someone independent to take a look at this."

Payne says in addition to his letter to governor Beshear, he's also asked Senators Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Congressman Brett Guthrie to at least take a look at his plan.

andy3175

Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 02:03:22 PM
The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.

Agreed. I have always argued that if it looks like an Interstate (i.e., four lanes, limited/controlled access, etc.) and connects with another Interstate, then it ought to be an Interstate. And if the freeway in question is just below Interstate standard but could become Interstate standard in a reasonable timeframe (such as the 20 or 25 year timeframe that was provided to allow Texas to connect I-2, I-69E, and I-69C to the rest of the Interstate Highway System), then it should be planned and signed as a future Interstate, much as North Carolina has done.

Although we know I-67 is just a proposal from a few politicians that has not yet received approval officially, I think a better solution (rather than moving US highways off original alignments and causing confusion between old and new US 60 or US 231) would be to give the parkways in question the Future I-x69 and Future I-67 designations until such time that they meet full Interstate standards. And I would recommend the same approach for segments of I-66 that are on the parkway system.

I know this approach is opposite what many on this forum seem to prefer, but I believe that moving US highways onto freeways will just allow future generations to kill them off when someone eventually does decide to make the freeway into an Interstate. In my opinion, it's best to leave the US highway on the original alignment (or a modified alignment that is not freeway), as I wish California had done.

Regards,
Andy
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

US 41

#293
This shouldn't even be an argument. Owensboro is never going to get I-69. They are going to get the spur I-369. I-69 is finished from Crane to Evansville. Indiana could care less about Owensboro. The goal of I-69 in Indiana is to connect Indy to Evansville, not Indy to Owensboro. I-67 also will probably never happen. A new bridge across the Ohio River is probably never going to happen either, especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built. An eastern bypass will probably be built around Henderson. Here is my proposal for the whole Ohio River Bridge project.

http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=P_kuh1y__g

Note: I'm aware that my Henderson Bypass cuts through the northern edge of a state park, but it is higher ground than the Ohio River Valley. There are also other ways of getting to the Horse track than US 41.

My plan would probably save Indiana and Kentucky tons of money.
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

Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 02:28:20 PM
This shouldn't even be an argument. Owensboro is never going to get I-69. They are going to get the spur I-369. I-69 is finished from Crane to Evansville. Indiana could care less about Owensboro. The goal of I-69 in Indiana is to connect Indy to Evansville, not Indy to Owensboro. I-67 also will probably never happen. A new bridge across the Ohio River is probably never going to happen either, especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built. An eastern bypass will probably be built around Henderson. Here is my proposal for the whole Ohio River Bridge project.

http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=P_kuh1y__g

Note: I'm aware that my Henderson Bypass cuts through the northern edge of a state park, but it is higher ground than the Ohio River Valley. There are also other ways of getting to the Horse track than US 41.

My plan would probably save Indiana and Kentucky tons of money.

Why don't they just cosign 41 and 69 over the ohio, then that would save money, do they really need another crossing?

hbelkins

Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 02:28:20 PMespecially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.

???


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jnewkirk77

New US 41 bridges have been discussed in some quarters, but they don't solve the issues of redundancy and capacity, unless we're talking adding a third lane in both directions with a breakdown lane to avoid the backups that happen every time there's a wreck on the current bridges.

Grzrd


US 41

Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 02:28:20 PMespecially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.

???

Okay, there is a good chance new ones are going to be built. Even if new bridges aren't going to be built, I-69 should still travel with US 41 across the Ohio. What happens if the US 41 bridges aren't replaced and new I-69 bridges are built? Will the US 41 bridges not be replaced, and then eventually be shut down? It would make since, especially since Kentucky and Indiana would be collecting toll money. Then Evansville and Henderson end up with what they had except they have to pay a buck to get across. No one wants that. A cloverleaf exists at US 41 / I-164, so a new interchange would not be needed in Indiana. Let's save money and help the citizens of the Evansville area out by not making things worse. The businesses of the Henderson area would be helped out with my bypass idea as they would still be getting thru traffic from I-69 who wants to stay at a hotel, get gas, or want to stop for a meal. Signs at my northern and southernmost interchanges could tell motorists to go straight for Henderson services. Kentucky could even call the Pennyrile and US 41 in Henderson "Business 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

hbelkins

They won't shut down the US 41 bridges if a new I-69 bridge is built. A lot of work has just been done on the old Owensboro bridge, even with the existence of the new US 231 bridge, so Kentucky will continue to maintain the US 41 bridges.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



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.