Interstate 169 Kentucky (The third)

[Stephane Dumas]

Someone jumped the gun on Google Maps and got I-169 marked.
http://archive.is/HGXOm

[sparker]

Someone jumped the gun on Google Maps and got I-169 marked.
http://archive.is/HGXOm

Seems to be a recurring theme these days -- something gets commissioned as a future route, and it shows up on Google in short order, only to be deleted not too long afterward.  Guess that's just intrinsic to the open Google Map process.

[The Ghostbuster]

One example of a jump-of-the-gun posting and removal on Google Maps was Interstate 587 in North Carolina. Personally, I don't mind the premature posting of Interstate routes on Google Maps.

[Captain Jack]

The distance between two fixed points: the east end of I-155 near Dyersburg and the I-55/240 interchange in south Memphis is, as the nearest roadway to crow-flying goes (US 51 + TN 300 + I-40 + I-240) is 86 miles; using I-155 into Missouri and then I-55 south to the southern point is 123 miles -- a 43% difference in mileage -- hardly insubstantial.  Once I-69 is completed south to Dyersburg, I-155/55 may be utilized as a temporary all-Interstate route to Memphis -- but it's hardly a permanent solution.                                         

Exactly. I travel from Evansville to Memphis regularly, and tried the 155-55 option exactly once. Not only does it add a substantial amount of miles to Memphis proper, most of the growth areas, and new business sections, are to the east...Cordova, Germantown, Collierville, etc. which adds even more miles and traffic to the trip.

What is the planned routing of 69 into Memphis? I do think you could make a good argument to drop it south around Covington, and link into I-40 and 1-269 at the same area.

At the pace Tennessee is moving on this project, I doubt any of us will be here to see it completed between Dyersburg and Memphis anyway.

[silverback1065]

The distance between two fixed points: the east end of I-155 near Dyersburg and the I-55/240 interchange in south Memphis is, as the nearest roadway to crow-flying goes (US 51 + TN 300 + I-40 + I-240) is 86 miles; using I-155 into Missouri and then I-55 south to the southern point is 123 miles -- a 43% difference in mileage -- hardly insubstantial.  Once I-69 is completed south to Dyersburg, I-155/55 may be utilized as a temporary all-Interstate route to Memphis -- but it's hardly a permanent solution.                                         

Exactly. I travel from Evansville to Memphis regularly, and tried the 155-55 option exactly once. Not only does it add a substantial amount of miles to Memphis proper, most of the growth areas, and new business sections, are to the east...Cordova, Germantown, Collierville, etc. which adds even more miles and traffic to the trip.

What is the planned routing of 69 into Memphis? I do think you could make a good argument to drop it south around Covington, and link into I-40 and 1-269 at the same area.

At the pace Tennessee is moving on this project, I doubt any of us will be here to see it completed between Dyersburg and Memphis anyway.

it will enter at tn 300, then shoot straight south using 40, 240, and 55

[Interstate 69 Fan]

Been a while. Anyone know if I-169 is signed?

[rickmastfan67]

Been a while. Anyone know if I-169 is signed?

I'm betting it only has 'future corridor' signage if anything.

[hbelkins]

Been a while. Anyone know if I-169 is signed?

I'm betting it only has 'future corridor' signage if anything.

And I'm doubting if it even has that yet. Typically, KYTC will do a press release and maybe even a sign unveiling ceremony about such things. There's been nothing publicized yet.

I might be able to check that out next weekend when I go to western Kentucky for the meet.

[Life in Paradise]

Maybe they will release a press release for "Future I-169" signs next year.  They have at least one exit (Exit 12) that will need to be reconfigured, and possible one other before it can be approved.  I would rather they get all the work done on the Purchase Parkway I-69 section done first.  Hopefully they are within a year of that completion.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682?  It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already.  It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.

[Captain Jack]

Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682?  It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already.  It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.

If they are going to sign it up to 1682, you might as well sign it the entire length to the I-69 interchange. There is no difference in build or roadway from 41A to I-69. If the Hopkinsville section can be signed, all of it can be.

I will add that this section could desperately use a resurfacing. It's getting rather bumpy, especially southbound.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682?  It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already.  It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.

If they are going to sign it up to 1682, you might as well sign it the entire length to the I-69 interchange. There is no difference in build or roadway from 41A to I-69. If the Hopkinsville section can be signed, all of it can be.

I will add that this section could desperately use a resurfacing. It's getting rather bumpy, especially southbound.

Taking a closer look on Google maps, it looks like the intersection with KY-1682 is the exception with a bow tie interchange.

So I guess the question is how quickly the KY Transportation cabinet it going to get that fixed.

If it were me deciding, I would get that fixed right away, because I-169 is low hanging fruit, and for the cost of one interchange and some resurfacing (which has to be done anyway), you have a new interstate, which is visible on the map and shows progress even to non-road geeks.

[Captain Jack]

You are correct with 1682 being the odd interchange. It was a toll plaza on the original parkway.

IMO, I would like to scrap I-169 and use I-61 from Evansville to Nashville. On what was a direct route on US 41, and a primary L&N line, it will now be replaced with the following...US 41 to I-69 to I-169 to I-24.   Just co-sign it with I-69 to Nortonville, stand alone to I-24 and co-sign with I-24 to Nashville. It would also look a lot cleaner with a continuous north-south route down through KY instead of (3) different routes splitting from a simple 4-direction interchange.

[Life in Paradise]

If this had been North Carolina, they would have applied for I-61 ten years ago, and it would be signed, plus I-67 would be running from Bowling Green to Owensboro, or further.

[Captain Jack]

If this had been North Carolina, they would have applied for I-61 ten years ago, and it would be signed, plus I-67 would be running from Bowling Green to Owensboro, or further.

If this was North Carolina, it would just be another disjointed section of I-74.

[sparker]

If this had been North Carolina, they would have applied for I-61 ten years ago, and it would be signed, plus I-67 would be running from Bowling Green to Owensboro, or further.

If this was North Carolina, it would just be another disjointed section of I-74.

From what I understand, the Owensboro mayor who was pushing for Interstate service to his city (and, for a while, to reroute I-69 through his town) is no longer in office.  Otherwise, there might have been pressure to combine the Natcher & Audubon parkways, along with the connecting Bypass US 60 segment, into one trunk Interstate (61? 63? 67?).  As it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!). 

[hbelkins]

Would it be possible to sign I-169 from I-24 north to US-68 or KY-1682?  It has a connection to an Interstate, and functions as a spur already.  It appears to be close to or at interstate standards as far as I can tell.

If they are going to sign it up to 1682, you might as well sign it the entire length to the I-69 interchange. There is no difference in build or roadway from 41A to I-69. If the Hopkinsville section can be signed, all of it can be.

I will add that this section could desperately use a resurfacing. It's getting rather bumpy, especially southbound.

Taking a closer look on Google maps, it looks like the intersection with KY-1682 is the exception with a bow tie interchange.

So I guess the question is how quickly the KY Transportation cabinet it going to get that fixed.

If it were me deciding, I would get that fixed right away, because I-169 is low hanging fruit, and for the cost of one interchange and some resurfacing (which has to be done anyway), you have a new interstate, which is visible on the map and shows progress even to non-road geeks.

There may be some ramp length or bridge clearance issues, such as there were on both the WK (the roadway was depressed under two bridges to achieve the necessary clearance) and Pennyrile (ramp length issues in a couple of places, including the Mortons Gap exit just north of the WK).

As it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!). 

Not necessarily. There are a bunch of projects in the plans for I-66, including in the statewide SHIFT priorities.

[sparker]

As it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!). 

Not necessarily. There are a bunch of projects in the plans for I-66, including in the statewide SHIFT priorities.

Any way you could enlighten us non-KY folks with details or at least cites for plans pertaining to the I-66 corridor?  Since the last on-paper definition of that corridor decidedly didn't include a jog up the Natcher and back west on WKY, does that mean that KY 80/US 68 is still in the mix west to at least I-24 -- or possibly all the way west to the Mayfield area using the (relatively) new 80 expressway?  Or is the main thrust of the projects aimed at finishing off the Somerset-London connection and/or upgrading the Hal Rogers?  And what prompted the move to take this corridor off the "back burner", so to speak?   

[hbelkins]

As it sits, the I-165 designation that was applied to the Natcher at the last SCOURN meeting all but puts nails in the coffin of the cross-state I-66 concept (out of which few if any have heard a peep over the last several years!). 

Not necessarily. There are a bunch of projects in the plans for I-66, including in the statewide SHIFT priorities.

Any way you could enlighten us non-KY folks with details or at least cites for plans pertaining to the I-66 corridor?  Since the last on-paper definition of that corridor decidedly didn't include a jog up the Natcher and back west on WKY, does that mean that KY 80/US 68 is still in the mix west to at least I-24 -- or possibly all the way west to the Mayfield area using the (relatively) new 80 expressway?  Or is the main thrust of the projects aimed at finishing off the Somerset-London connection and/or upgrading the Hal Rogers?  And what prompted the move to take this corridor off the "back burner", so to speak?

The focus on I-66 is the route of KY 80 and the Hal Rogers Parkway between Somerset and Hazard. I have no idea what might have brought this project back to life, but one guess is that the president of the Kentucky Senate is from Manchester (Clay County), which is 20 miles east of I-75 on the Hal Rogers Parkway.

Some rudimentary details can be found in the recently-developed statewide priority listing at http://transportation.ky.gov/SHIFT/Documents/Statewide%20Significance.pdf. Digging deeper into the highway plan posted elsewhere will reveal more details.

[bugo]

Is the Natcher Parkway ever going to become part of I-369? It seems like a natural extension.

[bugo]

US 77 south of Kingsville does not need to be a freeway. There is very little along that route. A couple of bypasses and a few interchanges should be sufficient. Waste of money.

[sparker]

Is the Natcher Parkway ever going to become part of I-369? It seems like a natural extension.

The Natcher was designated as future I-165 at the last AASHTO SCOURN meeting; no formal request to designate the Audubon as an Interstate has been submitted; the I-369 speculation of several years ago seems not to have gained much traction since.  But now that I-169 is functionally a reality, maybe in the next year or two something will happen on that front -- but I wouldn't be surprised to see it touted as simply a I-165 extension, using Bypass 60 around Owensboro as a connector (and big-time TOTSO country with the current interchange arrangements).

[hbelkins]

It should be noted that the "Future I-69 Spur" signs that were along the Audubon a few years ago have been gone for a couple of years -- while there are still "Future I-66 Corridor" signs along the Cumberland.

[Captain Jack]

I wasn't aware of that. I thought the Audubon was a done deal.

Didn't they just reconfigure the old toll plaza interchange to bring it to interstate standards?

Seems to me if they want interstate shields in Daviess County, that the Audubon would be a lot quicker conversion than the Natcher.

[sparker]

I wasn't aware of that. I thought the Audubon was a done deal.

Didn't they just reconfigure the old toll plaza interchange to bring it to interstate standards?

Seems to me if they want interstate shields in Daviess County, that the Audubon would be a lot quicker conversion than the Natcher.

Owensboro interests, including the former mayor, have been itching for Owensboro to be on a N-S Interstate corridor for quite some time now (an effort which produced some truly ridiculous proposals); so it's no surprise that the Natcher would be the first to be slated for those upgrades required to bring it up to Interstate standards (the usual "bowtie" former-toll-booth interchanges the most obvious among those).  Either the Audubon or the US 231 corridor north into IN and I-64 would be the obvious "follow-ups"; IMO the former would likely be the path of least resistance, as it wouldn't require cooperation from IN actors, who already have plenty on their plate.