http://www.wdrb.com/story/38282571/proposed-50-mile-interstate-would-provide-new-way-around-louisville
I can't see this ever being justifiable aside from perhaps a Shepherdsville-Mt. Washington spur from I-65.
It's hard enough justifying on paper the fact that Louisville already has 2 "belts" around the city (at least to the east and south). Add this 3rd one and you might as well go ahead and call the I-75 to I-65 connection via Lexington and the Bluegrass Parkway the 4th Far-Far-East Beltway.
Typical Kentucky. Spending big bucks on the areas that already have good roads, while county seats in rural areas are connected by glorified goat paths.
I don't know where they'll put this road, especially in Bullitt County. New housing has already eaten up just about everything in the area between Shepherdsville and Mt. Washington. (I have two first cousins who live on KY 44 near the east city limits of Shepherdsville, and my dad's two brothers live there as well, so I've seen that area grow from a sleepy rural area to a boomtown in the years since 1970.
If they really want to direct through 65-to-71 traffic around Louisville, give the Bluegrass Parkway-US 127-KY 35 corridor a number like CKC 110.
This whole concept seems like a "belt too far". Since the northern end is I-71 (unlikely IN would take part in such a venture), it looks like more of a "cutoff" than a beltway. And HB is more or less correct: upgrade US 127 to a freeway between the Bluegrass and I-64, slap a I-designation on the combination (after getting rid of the "bowtie" former-toll interchanges), and there's your Louisville bypass! No need to acquire what would likely be relatively costly properties to place a "3/8 beltway" that doesn't even have the potential to reduce I-65 traffic into the metro area.
The mere fact Kentucky is blowing $2MM to look at this is exactly what is wrong with government. 4 posts on here for free already has given them the answers they need.
Since I am in a generous mood, I am willing to save Kentucky 95% of this study, not to mention millions more in a common sense fix to this. Send me a $100K, and I will prepare a nice report suggesting what everyone else clearly knows.
Add a travel lane or two to the Gene Snyder.
Figure out a way to get the Bluegrass up to I-64, either via US 127, or plowing through a couple of horse farms. The latter would probably be much more beneficial to Lexington commuters.
It is nearly impossible to get to the southern sections of Lexington from the interstates, and they are contemplating a 50 mile, 3rd bypass of Louisville?
Quote from: Captain Jack on June 03, 2018, 12:02:15 PM
It is nearly impossible to get to the southern sections of Lexington from the interstates, and they are contemplating a 50 mile, 3rd bypass of Louisville?
There's been discussions for years about a connector to link I-75 in Madison County to US 27 somewhere near Nicholasville. The NIMBYs are up in arms over it, because they think this road will promote sprawl.
The solution to that is for the Jessamine County Fiscal Court to not approve any zoning changes and the KYTC not approve any private entrances to the connector road.
^ They're not wrong. At a minimum, it would promote sprawl in and beyond Nicholasville even if the connector were a full freeway with zero interchanges between US 27 and I-75.
And do you REALLY think Jessamine County wouldn't approve zoning changes? Fat chance of that happening...
------------
As for the study...I say let them study it. Given how hilly most of Kentucky is, $2M wouldn't buy a whole lot of "glorified goat path" upgrade, nor would it put much of a dent in major widening or bridge needs. Where the devil comes into the details is if the local politicians tried to fund construction of the new Beltway. THAT'S where I would question things, given needs elsewhere and given the fact that Kentucky still can't fund its portion of a MUCH NEEDED Brent Spence Bridge replacement.
The I-265 outer loop should be completed around the west side of the metro first.
It seems like signing IN 295 and KY 841 as I-265 would be a good and cheap way to get people to bypass downtown.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2018, 08:01:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
The I-265 outer loop should be completed around the west side of the metro first.
Agreed. It seems like signing IN 265 and KY 841 as I-265 would be a good and cheap way to get people to bypass downtown.
To be fair, that is the East End Crossing. I believe what is being proposed here is a West End Ohio River Crossing. I am not sure that is needed at this point. Maybe
Regarding the new East End Crossing/Future I-265, InDOT and KYTC need to add Long Distance Controls to I-265/IN 265/KY 841 signage
Coming from I-64 East and I-65 South in IN, I-265 East needs Controls of Cincinnati and Lexington. Heck, IN 265 East appoaching the Ohio River Bridge has a control of Louisville...That is ridiculous!
From KY, I-64 West and I-71 South should have I-265/KY 841 North Controls of Indy and St Louis
Take it a step further, and VMSes with logical comparitive travel times should also be installed approaching the I-265 interchanges. For example, approaching I-265 East on I-64 East in IN, should have a VMS with Travel Times to I-265/I-71 via I-265 and via I-64/I-71 Downtown, and also Times to I-265/I-64 via I-265 and via I-64/Downtown. Signs should be on I-64 East/IN, I-65 South/IN, I-71 South, I-64 West/KY.
Maybe I-65 North/KY, but it would need to be a pretty bad Downtown traffic situation to make thru I-65 Traffic want to use I-265. And coming from the South, the connections to I-64 East and I-71 North can be made via I-265, I-264, or Downtown. So maybe a VMS comparing those options
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2018, 08:01:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
The I-265 outer loop should be completed around the west side of the metro first.
Agreed. It seems like signing IN 295 and KY 841 as I-265 would be a good and cheap way to get people to bypass downtown.
I used to think that too, but in reality, there not enough population to spark growth even if they completed the loop back into Indiana (my mom and grandparents are from S. Indiana ( Harrison County), just not worth it. Those are REALLY small towns, not enough population to justify it.
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
The I-265 outer loop should be completed around the west side of the metro first.
That is some brutal terrain to get from the current SW end of the Gene Snyder up to I-64 in Indiana. Would be a very expensive project. Really doubt it ever even gets seriously considered.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2018, 08:42:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
The I-265 outer loop should be completed around the west side of the metro first.
That is some brutal terrain to get from the current SW end of the Gene Snyder up to I-64 in Indiana. Would be a very expensive project. Really doubt it ever even gets seriously considered.
Why then did they build it nearly to the Ohio River southwest of town if they didn't ultimately plan to extend it across the river?
I will grant that the terrain is rugged and the population density is low.
Port and industrial facilities although until circa 2000 (?) it ended at a stub for what could have been a continuation west.
They should be satisfied with having I-265 completed with the East End Crossing finally open to traffic, because in my mind, this is overkill.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on June 03, 2018, 10:03:33 PM
I used to think that too, but in reality, there not enough population to spark growth even if they completed the loop back into Indiana (my mom and grandparents are from S. Indiana ( Harrison County), just not worth it. Those are REALLY small towns, not enough population to justify it.
Oops! I meant the recently completed freeway on the east side and didn't quite read the post right. I've been quite a space case the last few days!
The new beltway idea seems even dumber then the "Indiana Commerce Connector" in Indiana several years back (since that would actually service some decent-sized exurbs of Indianapolis). Louisville's exurbs that far out are much smaller.
On I-265 going across the river, there's nothing on the Indiana side except Horseshoe Casino and very difficult terrain. 841 does turn into a 4-lane road that services the Industrial area/port on that side of town and eventually hits I-264.
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2018, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2018, 08:42:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
The I-265 outer loop should be completed around the west side of the metro first.
That is some brutal terrain to get from the current SW end of the Gene Snyder up to I-64 in Indiana. Would be a very expensive project. Really doubt it ever even gets seriously considered.
Why then did they build it nearly to the Ohio River southwest of town if they didn't ultimately plan to extend it across the river?
It gets traffic from the east over to Ft. Knox, as well, via US 31W. It's a bit out of the way to take I-65 all the way south to KY 313, then back northwest to Ft. Knox.
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2018, 03:26:05 PM
As for the study...I say let them study it. Given how hilly most of Kentucky is, $2M wouldn't buy a whole lot of "glorified goat path" upgrade, nor would it put much of a dent in major widening or bridge needs. Where the devil comes into the details is if the local politicians tried to fund construction of the new Beltway. THAT'S where I would question things, given needs elsewhere and given the fact that Kentucky still can't fund its portion of a MUCH NEEDED Brent Spence Bridge replacement.
No, but $2 million would fix a lot of breaks in rural areas that have been made worse by the wet weather this spring. And I don't think the Louisville outer-outer belt would ever be built, despite what the study says.
As for the Brent Spence, I'm doubtful that anything will ever be done because the anti-toll sentiment in northern Kentucky is very, very high.
Personally, the bridge isn't really a problem for me. I've had more issues well into Ohio, such as around the Paddock Road/Norwood Lateral interchanges and in the Sharonville area, closer to I-275.
There has been more construction going on at the I-65 crossing and the "I-265" East Crossing over the past years. They want to do more, now? I would think KY would have enough on their plates with the Ohio River bridge replacement near Cincinnati (obviously in tandem with Ohio) and the I-69 Ohio River bridge at Henderson (again in tandem with Indiana). They are also upgrading their parkways for I-69, I-169, I-369, and I-565. You would think that they have enough to keep their attention. Oh, they also have a big project on US-68 between Cadiz and Canton. I would think that they would be better served by upgrading KY-44, which was terrible between Shepherdsville and West Point, and needs more upgrands east of there.
Quote from: thefro on June 04, 2018, 01:13:49 PM
On I-265 going across the river, there's nothing on the Indiana side except Horseshoe Casino and very difficult terrain. 841 does turn into a 4-lane road that services the Industrial area/port on that side of town and eventually hits I-264.
What about at least extending it across the river as a 2-lane or 4-lane arterial to IN-11? Is there enough warrant for that?
Long stretch of river between Paynesville and I-64 with no river bridge.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on June 04, 2018, 02:09:54 PM
There has been more construction going on at the I-65 crossing and the "I-265" East Crossing over the past years. They want to do more, now? I would think KY would have enough on their plates with the Ohio River bridge replacement near Cincinnati (obviously in tandem with Ohio) and the I-69 Ohio River bridge at Henderson (again in tandem with Indiana). They are also upgrading their parkways for I-69, I-169, I-369, and I-565. You would think that they have enough to keep their attention. Oh, they also have a big project on US-68 between Cadiz and Canton. I would think that they would be better served by upgrading KY-44, which was terrible between Shepherdsville and West Point, and needs more upgrands east of there.
Is there a state transportation plan in Kentucky that prioritizes these and other possible projects? Sounds like there is a need for one.
This Interstate really isn't necessary. It's better than that ridiculous "eastern bypass" plan around Cincinnati, but it's still pretty unnecessary.
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: thefro on June 04, 2018, 01:13:49 PM
On I-265 going across the river, there's nothing on the Indiana side except Horseshoe Casino and very difficult terrain. 841 does turn into a 4-lane road that services the Industrial area/port on that side of town and eventually hits I-264.
What about at least extending it across the river as a 2-lane or 4-lane arterial to IN-11? Is there enough warrant for that?
Long stretch of river between Paynesville and I-64 with no river bridge.
The problem with building even just the bridge is that the terrain gets very steep very quickly on the Indiana side of the river. It's very impractical to build given the limited benefit.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 04, 2018, 06:44:27 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on June 04, 2018, 02:09:54 PM
There has been more construction going on at the I-65 crossing and the "I-265" East Crossing over the past years. They want to do more, now? I would think KY would have enough on their plates with the Ohio River bridge replacement near Cincinnati (obviously in tandem with Ohio) and the I-69 Ohio River bridge at Henderson (again in tandem with Indiana). They are also upgrading their parkways for I-69, I-169, I-369, and I-565. You would think that they have enough to keep their attention. Oh, they also have a big project on US-68 between Cadiz and Canton. I would think that they would be better served by upgrading KY-44, which was terrible between Shepherdsville and West Point, and needs more upgrands east of there.
Is there a state transportation plan in Kentucky that prioritizes these and other possible projects? Sounds like there is a need for one.
There are actually three plans. One is the STIP, which I understand every state is required to do. https://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2017-STIP-Book.aspx
Then there's SHIFT, which is the new prioritization plan instituted by the current governor and transportation secretary. https://transportation.ky.gov/SHIFT/Pages/default.aspx
And finally, there's the six-year highway plan enacted by the legislature. A number of projects previously authorized by the legislature were omitted from the plan when it was presented to the legislature this year, as a result of the SHIFT prioritization. Many of those projects were added back in by the General Assembly when it considered the submitted plan. https://transportation.ky.gov/SHIFT/PublishingImages/Pages/default/2018%20Enacted%20Plan%20All%20Years.pdf
So there's no lack of a plan, but perhaps there are too many plans.
In North Carolina, the STIP is the one plan. It covers ten years; the current plan is for 2018-2027. It is revised and extended every two years, and the process has begun to revise it for 2020-2029. If you're interested, this press release describes the process:
https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2020-2029.html
The STIP describes, in mind-boggling detail, everything scheduled for the ten years, including when right of way will be acquired and when construction will occur.
The process by which projects are prioritized and added to the STIP was established by the legislature in the Strategic Transportation Investments Act of 2013. The STIP process does not to stop action by politicians and other interested parties, and we've had some well-publicized interstate projects pushed by politicians and chambers of commerce (I-42, I-87, I-587). But for implementation these ideas have to find their home, piece by piece, in the STIP.
This process is not perfect, but it seems to be working pretty well. In particular, the ten-year horizon seems to be a good idea for prioritizing and controlling big projects like new interstate highways.
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.
^ 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.
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.
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.
All fed-aid projects have to be on the STIP.
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.
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.
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).
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Widening 71, 65, and the Snyder as well as improving the 64 and 71 Snyder interchanges would be better ideas.
From I-65 to I-71.
https://wdrb.news/2GmQum4
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 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
Since Louisville is an Ohio River city, would this not make since for the Ohio Valley board, not the Great Lakes?
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
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.
Can't believe my state is going to waste money studying this, which is not needed by any stretch of the imagination.
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:
Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2020, 11:14:02 PM
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:
The bypass would likely be constructed as a toll road.
Quote from: ibthebigd on January 25, 2020, 08:27:20 AM
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
The formal "8664" effort is long dead, but the idea still gets tossed around in public discourse from time to time.
This bypass isn't needed.
But I think it would be keen to have an I-771.
I'm not sure exactly what the goal of this bypass would be. If it's to move traffic around Louisville, the question of where that traffic is going would be relevant. If there's a need to bypass Louisville on the way to Cincinnati, then the BG Parkway, US 127, I-64, and US 62 make a great route to I-75 north. If it's to alleviate local concerns, then solutions such as adding a TWLTL on KY 44 would be a lot cheaper and solve a lot of problems. I have two first cousins who live on 44 just west of the Floyds Fork bridge, and the whole corridor between Shepherdsville and Mt. Washington has built up since the 1970s. Just adding a center turn lane would take a lot of expensive right of way; buying out hundreds of residences to build a full freeway would be prohibitively expensive.
Does Louisville really need a third "beltway"? If the area was a rapidly growing one, and existing Interstates 264 and 265 were tremendously overburdened, I'd say go for it. However, I suspect that is not the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2020, 03:55:39 PM
Does Louisville really need a third "beltway"? If the area was a rapidly growing one, and existing Interstates 264 and 265 were tremendously overburdened, I'd say go for it. However, I suspect that is not the case.
@Houston
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2020, 03:55:39 PM
Does Louisville really need a third "beltway"? If the area was a rapidly growing one, and existing Interstates 264 and 265 were tremendously overburdened, I'd say go for it. However, I suspect that is not the case.
@Houston
7.1 million metro population vs. 1.2 million.
Seems as dumb to me as the "Indiana Commerce Corridor" proposal in Indiana (and probably dumber since Louisville has two beltways that aren't overloaded whatsoever outside of the peak of rush hour).
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 10:07:08 PM
7.1 million metro population vs. 1.2 million.
Exactly my point. There's the need for a 3rd outer beltway in Houston, with a talked about 4th one also on the books, there's not in Louisville.
The only project that needs to happen is an extension of the Bluegrass Pkwy to I-64 / I-75 which would provide a bypass for I-65 to I-71 thru traffic via the Parkway and I-75 only adding an additional 20 miles. This will never happen though thanks to NIMBY in the Lexington area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 10:07:08 PM
7.1 million metro population vs. 1.2 million.
Exactly my point. There's the need for a 3rd outer beltway in Houston....
I-610, Beltway8/SHT, and Grand Parkway are already completed or in process. Are you saying there should be a 4th or are you not counting 610?
Quote from: rte66man on January 31, 2020, 12:30:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 10:07:08 PM
7.1 million metro population vs. 1.2 million.
Exactly my point. There's the need for a 3rd outer beltway in Houston....
I-610, Beltway8/SHT, and Grand Parkway are already completed or in process. Are you saying there should be a 4th or are you not counting 610?
He's saying that the existing third beltway is justified.
Quote from: rte66man on January 31, 2020, 12:30:06 PM
I-610, Beltway8/SHT, and Grand Parkway are already completed or in process. Are you saying there should be a 4th or are you not counting 610?
I'm counting I-610 and Beltway 8 as the existing beltways, and that a third one - Grand Parkway, currently under construction - is justified. If anything, you could say there's 4 beltways if you count the Downtown Loop consisting of I-10, I-45, and I-69.
Does anyone have any idea how long it will likely be before construction on this could start? Even though additional studies have to be done it seems they are usually just formalities as I believe some big contractors are pushing to make sure this happens with the assistance of those they support in government. I live approximately 2000 ft from the most likely route and it will be devastating to see the environmental destruction of these rural areas surrounding Louisville for little reason.
Quote from: GoDeacs on April 27, 2021, 07:00:55 PM
Does anyone have any idea how long it will likely be before construction on this could start? Even though additional studies have to be done it seems they are usually just formalities as I believe some big contractors are pushing to make sure this happens with the assistance of those they support in government. I live approximately 2000 ft from the most likely route and it will be devastating to see the environmental destruction of these rural areas surrounding Louisville for little reason.
I doubt Louisville would get a third beltway. The second (I-265) is 4 lanes in most areas, which may be saying that it's not heavily used.
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
With a metro population of 1.3mil, I'm going with a hard no. There's tons of metro areas with double that population that doesn't even have a second beltway.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 27, 2021, 08:15:03 PM
Quote from: GoDeacs on April 27, 2021, 07:00:55 PM
Does anyone have any idea how long it will likely be before construction on this could start? Even though additional studies have to be done it seems they are usually just formalities as I believe some big contractors are pushing to make sure this happens with the assistance of those they support in government. I live approximately 2000 ft from the most likely route and it will be devastating to see the environmental destruction of these rural areas surrounding Louisville for little reason.
I doubt Louisville would get a third beltway. The second (I-265) is 4 lanes in most areas, which may be saying that it's not heavily used.
And if the need for more beltway arises they can easily widen 265
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 27, 2021, 10:13:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
With a metro population of 1.3mil, I'm going with a hard no. There's tons of metro areas with double that population that doesn't even have a second beltway.
I agree. Definitely not.
It would make a lot more sense to finish the southwestern quadrant of the beltway they already have and provide another Ohio River crossing. It's crazy that there are no Ohio River crossings between I-64 and Brandenburg.
Quote from: webny99 on April 27, 2021, 10:29:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 27, 2021, 10:13:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
With a metro population of 1.3mil, I'm going with a hard no. There's tons of metro areas with double that population that doesn't even have a second beltway.
I agree. Definitely not.
It would make a lot more sense to finish the southwestern quadrant of the beltway they already have and provide another Ohio River crossing. It's crazy that there are no Ohio River crossings between I-64 and Brandenburg.
The terrain southwest of the I-64 crossing does not lend itself to another crossing, and with the sparse population of that area on the IN side, there isn't huge demand either. Upgrades to Cane Run/Greenbelt would be less expensive and just as effective.
Having lived in both the Louisville area and now Northwest Indiana, I can say that the Illiana is a much more necessary highway than another Louisville beltway. I get that it's different states proposing them, but that's the comparison.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 28, 2021, 07:24:10 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 27, 2021, 10:29:22 PM
It would make a lot more sense to finish the southwestern quadrant of the beltway they already have and provide another Ohio River crossing. It's crazy that there are no Ohio River crossings between I-64 and Brandenburg.
The terrain southwest of the I-64 crossing does not lend itself to another crossing, and with the sparse population of that area on the IN side, there isn't huge demand either. Upgrades to Cane Run/Greenbelt would be less expensive and just as effective.
I think there would be plenty of demand if there was another river crossing.
Why would KY have spent so much time and money on creating several rounds of detailed proposals if it will likely not be built? It seems someone at some level must be pushing it? There are so many highways such as KY44 in the region that need to be expanded yet this project appears to be being pushed to the front of the line.
Quote from: GoDeacs on April 28, 2021, 11:53:26 AM
Why would KY have spent so much time and money on creating several rounds of detailed proposals if it will likely not be built?
That happens with tons of road projects around the nation. One regional example is I-73 in Ohio and Michigan. Both states dropped out that idea after studying it extensively in the 90s.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 28, 2021, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: GoDeacs on April 28, 2021, 11:53:26 AM
Why would KY have spent so much time and money on creating several rounds of detailed proposals if it will likely not be built?
That happens with tons of road projects around the nation. One regional example is I-73 in Ohio and Michigan. Both states dropped out that idea after studying it extensively in the 90s.
See also the millions spent by NY on the Rooftop and Long Island Sound crossing...
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 28, 2021, 07:24:10 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 27, 2021, 10:29:22 PM
It would make a lot more sense to finish the southwestern quadrant of the beltway they already have and provide another Ohio River crossing. It's crazy that there are no Ohio River crossings between I-64 and Brandenburg.
The terrain southwest of the I-64 crossing does not lend itself to another crossing, and with the sparse population of that area on the IN side, there isn't huge demand either. Upgrades to Cane Run/Greenbelt would be less expensive and just as effective.
I think there would be plenty of demand if there was another river crossing.
Where does the crossing go and then where does the road go once it crosses? A crossing at the end of the Snyder freeway dumps you out on IN 111 south of IN 211, which is a very desolate area. If you try to go inland from the river at all you hit some very steep terrain. There's really no use for a crossing there. There's no crossing between New Albany and Mauckport because there's nothing there to justify having one.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 28, 2021, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 28, 2021, 07:24:10 AM
The terrain southwest of the I-64 crossing does not lend itself to another crossing, and with the sparse population of that area on the IN side, there isn't huge demand either. Upgrades to Cane Run/Greenbelt would be less expensive and just as effective.
I think there would be plenty of demand if there was another river crossing.
Where does the crossing go and then where does the road go once it crosses? A crossing at the end of the Snyder freeway dumps you out on IN 111 south of IN 211, which is a very desolate area. If you try to go inland from the river at all you hit some very steep terrain. There's really no use for a crossing there. There's no crossing between New Albany and Mauckport because there's nothing there to justify having one.
The end of the Snyder freeway seems like the logical place for a crossing if it was going to eventually be part of a complete I-265. It would probably have to be a CSVT-style (http://www.csvt.com/#) crossing where the roadway remains elevated for ~1000 ft on the Indiana side.
It may seem like there's not much demand because it's all getting pushed to Louisville, but I imagine I-64 and the western side of I-264 are no picnic during peak times. If there was another crossing with a connection to I-64, it would get plenty of use by traffic connecting between I-64 WB and I-65 SB and vice versa. That would also reduce the burden on the I-64 crossing. I'm not saying this is a high priority, but it is certainly a much higher priority than a third beltway.
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2021, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 28, 2021, 12:52:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 28, 2021, 07:24:10 AM
The terrain southwest of the I-64 crossing does not lend itself to another crossing, and with the sparse population of that area on the IN side, there isn't huge demand either. Upgrades to Cane Run/Greenbelt would be less expensive and just as effective.
I think there would be plenty of demand if there was another river crossing.
Where does the crossing go and then where does the road go once it crosses? A crossing at the end of the Snyder freeway dumps you out on IN 111 south of IN 211, which is a very desolate area. If you try to go inland from the river at all you hit some very steep terrain. There's really no use for a crossing there. There's no crossing between New Albany and Mauckport because there's nothing there to justify having one.
The end of the Snyder freeway seems like the logical place for a crossing if it was going to eventually be part of a complete I-265. It would probably have to be a CSVT-style (http://www.csvt.com/#) crossing where the roadway remains elevated for ~1000 ft on the Indiana side.
It may seem like there's not much demand because it's all getting pushed to Louisville, but I imagine I-64 and the western side of I-264 are no picnic during peak times. If there was another crossing with a connection to I-64, it would get plenty of use by traffic connecting between I-64 WB and I-65 SB and vice versa. That would also reduce the burden on the I-64 crossing. I'm not saying this is a high priority, but it is certainly a much higher priority than a third beltway.
Even though they're surface streets, Greenbelt/Cane Run aren't bad to get you up to 264, even during peak times. The 64 crossing is also not bad during peak times. A direct freeway connection would save only a handful of minutes.
That bridge at Brandenburg provides a high-speed route to I-65 in the Elizabethtown area. Take IN 135 from Corydon, then cross the river and it becomes KY 313 (renumbered from KY 79). A new-terrain route has been built all the way to I-65 between E-town and Lebanon Junction. Various intersections with other new-terrain routes and US 31W provide access to Radcliff and E-town.
The big issue with KY 44 in Bullitt County is the need for a TWLTL between Shepherdsville and Mt. Washington. I'm intimately familiar with that section, as I have two first cousins who live near the east city limits of Shepherdsville.
With improvements to US 31E/150 in place between Bardstown and Mt. Washington, there's a de-facto outer bypass that gives access to I-265 via the BG Parkway.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 27, 2021, 10:13:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
With a metro population of 1.3mil, I'm going with a hard no. There's tons of metro areas with double that population that doesn't even have a second beltway.
I see your hard no and raise you and absofreakinlutely no. as a louisville resident I can say from just looking at local traffic let's get the third lane of the gene snyder installed first and still have traffic issues before we go talking about another belt loop. any talk about a new outer belt is probably someone in frankfort trying to stick it to louisville while pocketing some funds. lexington needs one completed full limited access beltway before we get a third.
Quote from: ctkatz on April 29, 2021, 09:38:09 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 27, 2021, 10:13:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
With a metro population of 1.3mil, I'm going with a hard no. There's tons of metro areas with double that population that doesn't even have a second beltway.
I see your hard no and raise you and absofreakinlutely no. as a louisville resident I can say from just looking at local traffic let's get the third lane of the gene snyder installed first and still have traffic issues before we go talking about another belt loop. any talk about a new outer belt is probably someone in frankfort trying to stick it to louisville while pocketing some funds. lexington needs one completed full limited access beltway before we get a third.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's politicians from Bullitt, Shelby, and Oldham County that have been pushing this 3rd beltway proposal. There's a lot of other projects that need to be done first. In Louisville alone you have finishing the 265 widening all the way to 65, widening the last mile of 264 from Westport Rd to 71, reconstructing the US-42/264 interchange, fixing aspects of the 264/65 interchange, widening 71 all the way to downtown, widening 64 all the way to downtown, and rebuilding+widening 65 inside 264.
Outside of Louisville you have the Lexington beltway that you mentioned, widening 64 between Shelbyville and Lexington, widening 75 to the Tennessee line, widening 71 from Crestwood to La Grange, rebuilding and widening 71/75 inside 275, and the Brent Spence Bridge replacement project. I-65 might need to be widened to 4 lanes each way from 265 to E-town in the near future as well.
Quote from: ukfan758 on May 04, 2021, 05:48:19 AM
Quote from: ctkatz on April 29, 2021, 09:38:09 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 27, 2021, 10:13:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:04:57 PM
Is Lousiville big enough for a third beltway?
With a metro population of 1.3mil, I'm going with a hard no. There's tons of metro areas with double that population that doesn't even have a second beltway.
I see your hard no and raise you and absofreakinlutely no. as a louisville resident I can say from just looking at local traffic let's get the third lane of the gene snyder installed first and still have traffic issues before we go talking about another belt loop. any talk about a new outer belt is probably someone in frankfort trying to stick it to louisville while pocketing some funds. lexington needs one completed full limited access beltway before we get a third.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's politicians from Bullitt, Shelby, and Oldham County that have been pushing this 3rd beltway proposal. There's a lot of other projects that need to be done first. In Louisville alone you have finishing the 265 widening all the way to 65, widening the last mile of 264 from Westport Rd to 71, reconstructing the US-42/264 interchange, fixing aspects of the 264/65 interchange, widening 71 all the way to downtown, widening 64 all the way to downtown, and rebuilding+widening 65 inside 264.
Outside of Louisville you have the Lexington beltway that you mentioned, widening 64 between Shelbyville and Lexington, widening 75 to the Tennessee line, widening 71 from Crestwood to La Grange, rebuilding and widening 71/75 inside 275, and the Brent Spence Bridge replacement project. I-65 might need to be widened to 4 lanes each way from 265 to E-town in the near future as well.
I-75 could MAYBE be widened to Corbin and that's it. South of there it's not needed and Tennessee won't even think about doing anything on that stretch. Widening inside 265 (and especially 264) would be very costly especially since 65 is elevated through downtown. Most of the other upgrades I can see happening within the next 10-15 years.
Quote from: I-55 on May 04, 2021, 12:06:55 PM
I-75 could MAYBE be widened to Corbin and that's it. South of there it's not needed and Tennessee won't even think about doing anything on that stretch.
The six-lane stretch south of Lexington is great. I would love to see it widened all the way to Knoxville, although that may never happen, especially Tennessee's segment over Jellico Mtn (which can get very slow and crowded with heavy truck traffic).
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: I-55 on May 04, 2021, 12:06:55 PM
I-75 could MAYBE be widened to Corbin and that's it. South of there it's not needed and Tennessee won't even think about doing anything on that stretch.
The six-lane stretch south of Lexington is great. I would love to see it widened all the way to Knoxville, although that may never happen, especially Tennessee's segment over Jellico Mtn (which can get very slow and crowded with heavy truck traffic).
Considering that TN is not widening I-65 between Nashville and KY border, I doubt seeing a I-75 widening anytime soon.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 04, 2021, 01:26:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: I-55 on May 04, 2021, 12:06:55 PM
I-75 could MAYBE be widened to Corbin and that's it. South of there it's not needed and Tennessee won't even think about doing anything on that stretch.
The six-lane stretch south of Lexington is great. I would love to see it widened all the way to Knoxville, although that may never happen, especially Tennessee's segment over Jellico Mtn (which can get very slow and crowded with heavy truck traffic).
Considering that TN is not widening I-65 between Nashville and KY border, I doubt seeing a I-75 widening anytime soon.
TN is slowly upgrading segments of 65, but again, slowly. ]
Quote from: I-55 on May 04, 2021, 12:06:55 PM
I-75 could MAYBE be widened to Corbin and that's it.
The projects to widen it as far south as exit 29 (North Corbin) are already under construction. I'd like to see it go to at least exit 11 in Williamsburg, so that all the KY county seats along I-75 would be served by a 6 lane facility.