News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Kentucky to study new interstate beltway around Louisville

Started by tidecat, June 02, 2018, 11:00:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

The federal mandate for a STIP is that it be at least 5 years long and is updated/revised at longest every 2 years.

Maryland is 5 and 1, Virginia is 6 and 1, Pennsylvania is 12 and 1.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)


froggie

^ I'm not sure 5 years is the actual requirement.  I recall in the past, 3 years was a hard mandate, but there are several state DOTs today (including MN, WI, VT, NH, and MD) that are doing a 4-year STIP, not 5.

Maryland's is actually a 4-year, not 5.

http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/STIP_TIP/Documents/1.0.pdf

Are you thinking of their Consolidated Transportation Plan?  I believe that's different from the STIP.

Beltway

Quote from: froggie on June 05, 2018, 05:11:37 PM
^ I'm not sure 5 years is the actual requirement.  I recall in the past, 3 years was a hard mandate, but there are several state DOTs today (including MN, WI, VT, NH, and MD) that are doing a 4-year STIP, not 5.
Maryland's is actually a 4-year, not 5.
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/STIP_TIP/Documents/1.0.pdf
Are you thinking of their Consolidated Transportation Plan?  I believe that's different from the STIP.

I always thought that the CTP was also the STIP.  It is 5 years because that is one year longer than a governor's term.  Conceptually very similar to the VDOT Six-Year Program.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

hbelkins

I've found that Kentucky's STIP contains much more than all the major projects that end up in what's commonly called the Six-Year Plan. Smaller items, such as HSIP projects that don't get included in what the legislature enacts, are in the STIP.

The SHIFT prioritization is new for Kentucky. It was used as the basis for what KYTC recommended to the legislature, but it omitted many projects that had been in previous six-year plans. So the legislature added them back in.

If the current governor does not win re-election (which is a very good possibility) or does not run for re-election (also rumored; most frequently that he will take a position in the Trump administration), then I don't look for SHIFT to survive into the next administration.

Kentucky funds two years' worth of projects in the plan, all phases including design, ROW acquisition, utility relocation and construction, and the remaining four years of the six-year plan are projections.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Rothman

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

wdcrft63

Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 05:00:39 PM
The federal mandate for a STIP is that it be at least 5 years long and is updated/revised at longest every 2 years.

Maryland is 5 and 1, Virginia is 6 and 1, Pennsylvania is 12 and 1.
Here's the federal requirement:

"The State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) for all areas of the State. The STIP shall cover a period of no less than 4 years and shall be updated at least every 4 years, or more frequently if the Governor of the State elects a more frequent update cycle. However, if the STIP covers more than 4 years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years as informational."
source:https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.5.11&idno=23#se23.1.450_1218

In North Carolina's case, it was the legislature to decided on a 10-year STIP and a 2-year update cycle.

Beltway

Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 06, 2018, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 05:00:39 PM
The federal mandate for a STIP is that it be at least 5 years long and is updated/revised at longest every 2 years.
Maryland is 5 and 1, Virginia is 6 and 1, Pennsylvania is 12 and 1.
Here's the federal requirement:
"The State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) for all areas of the State. The STIP shall cover a period of no less than 4 years and shall be updated at least every 4 years, or more frequently if the Governor of the State elects a more frequent update cycle. However, if the STIP covers more than 4 years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years as informational."
source:https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.5.11&idno=23#se23.1.450_1218

That is 2018, the standards may have been relaxed over the years.  IMHO updating/revising on a 4-year cycle would make the TIP all but useless.

The VDOT Six-Year Program has plenty of needed updates every year.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Rothman

STIP can be a total exaggeration of what actually consists of a state's capital program.  Although FHWA maintains that NY makes a disproportionate amount of amendments compared to other states, the fact of the matter is that the STIP really is just an enabling document for the authorization of federal aid.  I have often wondered if the federal mandate for a STIP has incurred costs that outweigh the benefits (e.g., cost of MPO staff and other planning staff at state and other regional levels).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Beltway

Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
STIP can be a total exaggeration of what actually consists of a state'a capital program.  Although FHWA maintains that NY makes a disproportionate amount of amendments compared to other states, the fact of the matter is that the STIP really is just an enabling document for the authorization of federal aid.  I have often wondered if the federal mandate for a STIP has incurred costs that outweigh the benefits (e.g., cost of MPO staff and other planning staff at state and other regional levels).

Also known in some cases as a "wish list", that is what some folks at PennDOT called it back when I was there in the 1970s.  Some also joked about the fact that it was 12 years long, how to program for that far into the future.

"The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and the TIP are the first four years of the Twelve Year Program (TYP), which outline the multimodal transportation improvements spanning a four year period."

"The State Transportation Commission (STC) reviews and approves the Twelve Year Program every two years"

http://www.projects.penndot.gov/projects/TIP.aspx
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

wdcrft63

Thanks everyone for an informative discussion of STIPs; I'm learning a lot.

But let me return to my original question, which had to do with this recent proposal for another interstate outer belt around Louisville. This caused a lot of comment, generally unfavorable. My question was, doesn't Kentucky have a long range plan for highway/transportation development to which we can refer this idea? I would expect a discussion in which folks would be saying, well, this does fit the long-range plan or it doesn't fit the plan, and the latter case this is what's in the plan that addresses some of the need being expressed by this proposal. If Kentucky has a 4-year STIP, then that's only a short term plan and we probably can't look there for anything relevant to the proposal.

There have been several proposals in recent years for interstate designations of parts of the parkway system, and they have been addressed on an individual basis as far as I can see. They've seemed quite reasonable to me, but here again I don't hear any discussion of a long-range plan for the parkway system that says something about possible improvements and extensions of that system. If such a thing doesn't exist, I think it should.

seicer

I was looking for any discussion on the Jefferson Freeway (Snider when it opened) - and its western terminus, but couldn't find any. Maps that I found in archives from the mid-1970's had it ending where it ends now.

hbelkins

Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 07, 2018, 06:46:17 PM
Thanks everyone for an informative discussion of STIPs; I'm learning a lot.

But let me return to my original question, which had to do with this recent proposal for another interstate outer belt around Louisville. This caused a lot of comment, generally unfavorable. My question was, doesn't Kentucky have a long range plan for highway/transportation development to which we can refer this idea? I would expect a discussion in which folks would be saying, well, this does fit the long-range plan or it doesn't fit the plan, and the latter case this is what's in the plan that addresses some of the need being expressed by this proposal. If Kentucky has a 4-year STIP, then that's only a short term plan and we probably can't look there for anything relevant to the proposal.

There have been several proposals in recent years for interstate designations of parts of the parkway system, and they have been addressed on an individual basis as far as I can see. They've seemed quite reasonable to me, but here again I don't hear any discussion of a long-range plan for the parkway system that says something about possible improvements and extensions of that system. If such a thing doesn't exist, I think it should.

I'm not sure what else could be done with the parkways other than the under-development Mountain Parkway project and a Bluegrass Parkway extension, which will never happen. There are various "I-66" projects on the books, but at the same time, Kentucky keeps putting in at-grades on the Hal Rogers Parkway. There are also references in various places to a "Heartland Parkway," but that is basically improvements to existing roads that have already been improved once. (I'm not sure if this corridor involves KY 55, KY 210 and KY 61 between Columbia and Elizabethtown, or KY 55 and KY 55 between Columbia and the Bluegrass Parkway).

Everything else is pretty well linked by ARC corridors or other routes (US 23, US 25E, KY 80, KY 15, US 119, US 460, US 641, US 150, US 68/KY 80, US 27, US 127, etc.). I admit to being biased, but I think Kentucky should concentrate on improving connections between county seats that are off the interstates, parkways, ARC corridors and the routes that I listed examples of above.

Quote from: seicer on June 07, 2018, 09:26:17 PM
I was looking for any discussion on the Jefferson Freeway (Snider when it opened) - and its western terminus, but couldn't find any. Maps that I found in archives from the mid-1970's had it ending where it ends now.

I remember when KY 841 was in two discontinuous segments. One was between KY 155 and US 60 -- and indeed, my dad used to say that when I was young, I-64 ended there and we had to take the old Jefferson Freeway to US 60 to continue on in to Louisville, but I have no memory of that -- and I think the other was between I-71 and US 42. I don't really remember when the freeway was completed, but I do know that when it was, my family members who lived in Shepherdsville started using it to come back home instead of the shortcut route we had always used between Shelbyville and Mt. Washington. I do remember driving on the route when it ended at Dixie Highway; the extension that loops back to I-264 was built later.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Captain Jack

#37
Quote from: hbelkins on June 08, 2018, 09:48:06 PM

I remember when KY 841 was in two discontinuous segments. One was between KY 155 and US 60 -- and indeed, my dad used to say that when I was young, I-64 ended there and we had to take the old Jefferson Freeway to US 60 to continue on in to Louisville, but I have no memory of that -- and I think the other was between I-71 and US 42. I don't really remember when the freeway was completed, but I do know that when it was, my family members who lived in Shepherdsville started using it to come back home instead of the shortcut route we had always used between Shelbyville and Mt. Washington. I do remember driving on the route when it ended at Dixie Highway; the extension that loops back to I-264 was built later.

Looking at a 1967 Kentucky map, this is what I see at that time:

I-64 was completed from US 60 at Frankfort to the Watterson.

The Watterson was completed from US 42 to Dixie Hwy, with the section over to Cane Run under construction

841 showed under construction only between I-71, which was also under construction and US 42. In fact, none of I-71 was complete in KY at that time. As far as 841, there was nothing even shown as proposed past US 42.

Life in Paradise

I always thought that I-71 was an add on to I-264, and I-264 originally was to go from I-64 downtown to circle Louisville until it met back up with I-64 just shy of the Ohio River Bridge at New Albany. 

Captain Jack

Quote from: Life in Paradise on June 09, 2018, 12:23:12 PM
I always thought that I-71 was an add on to I-264, and I-264 originally was to go from I-64 downtown to circle Louisville until it met back up with I-64 just shy of the Ohio River Bridge at New Albany.

From the design it does appear that way. I went back to my '67 map. There was a small section of this road completed, from Zorn Avenue to the I-65 junction, however, there is no shield or name marked for it on this map.

hbelkins

Quote from: Captain Jack on June 10, 2018, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on June 09, 2018, 12:23:12 PM
I always thought that I-71 was an add on to I-264, and I-264 originally was to go from I-64 downtown to circle Louisville until it met back up with I-64 just shy of the Ohio River Bridge at New Albany.

From the design it does appear that way. I went back to my '67 map. There was a small section of this road completed, from Zorn Avenue to the I-65 junction, however, there is no shield or name marked for it on this map.

Part of it may have been that one of the last sections of I-64 completed was the portion west of I-264, including the Cochran Hill tunnels. To continue west, you took I-264 north to I-71 south.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

ukfan758

Widening 71, 65, and the Snyder as well as improving the 64 and 71 Snyder interchanges would be better ideas.

2trailertrucker


amroad17

Great!  For those in the Kentucky threads, KTC can make the bypass I-71 to facilitate the wishes to add I-71 along I-65 and the Western Kentucky Parkway.  The remainder of I-71 could be I-271 (not another I-2xx in the Louisville area!) or I-671.
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

ibthebigd

I know this is kind of off topic.

Are people still trying to take the riverfront back and move I-64 to I-265?

SM-G950U


ilpt4u

Since Louisville is an Ohio River city, would this not make since for the Ohio Valley board, not the Great Lakes?

Buck87

It would be interesting to see more detailed plans for the Alternate 5 option which appears to go right down the corridor of the well developed 2 lane KY 44 between Mt Washington and Shepherdsville

Life in Paradise

Looking at the potential routes given, it wouldn't be much more to run the bypass down to the west side of Bardstown and hook it into the Bluegrass Parkway.  The BP would then run into I-65 where they could dead end I-71  OR  go ahead and run it down to I-69 and get rid of that stupid idea of running I-569 for 33 miles.  I'm guessing, though that they really want it to hook into I-65 near Shepherdsville.  Besides the Arboretium, there is a large boy scout camp located on east side of I-65.

hbelkins

Can't believe my state is going to waste money studying this, which is not needed by any stretch of the imagination.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

I'm pretty sure we already have a thread on this, on the correct board no less: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22987.0

Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2020, 09:48:17 PM
Can't believe my state is going to waste money studying this, which is not needed by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't get it either.  They don't have the money to do Ohio River bridges without tolls but they have the money for this?  :eyebrow:
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



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.