Doesn't this "violate" naming rules? Shouldn't it be an even first number since it connects two interstates?
For example I-205 connects I-5 to I-580 in CA.
WESTERN KENTUCKY (4/3/19) – U.S. Rep. James Comer and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today introduced companion legislation to begin the process of designating a section of the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway in Muhlenberg and Ohio counties as a spur of Interstate 69 (I-369). The pieces of legislation would add the section of roadway to the list of "High Priority Corridors," and, once additional steps have been taken at the state and federal levels to make the designation official, would label the roadway as I-369.
This new designation will highlight the region's connections with the federal interstate highway system and aid in attracting new industry and economic development to this area.
"A federal interstate designation can bolster the Western Kentucky Parkway's capacity to drive economic development and new jobs in Ohio and Muhlenberg counties," said McConnell. "Together with Congressman Comer and local leaders, we are working to support the region's growth to benefit workers and families. As Senate Majority Leader, I consistently work to bring national attention to Kentucky's priorities, and I'm hopeful this designation will be enacted to deliver positive results for the Commonwealth."
"Designating this crucial section of the Western Kentucky Parkway as a federal interstate spur instantly enhances Muhlenberg and Ohio counties' attractiveness as an industrial destination. This will lead to better paying jobs and greater opportunities for both communities," Comer said.
Melinda Gibbons-Prunty, state representative for Muhlenberg and Hopkins counties, said, "I applaud Congressman Comer and Sen. McConnell for bringing forth this important I-69 legislation. They, along with the rest of our federal delegation, the Muhlenberg Alliance for Progress Economic Development Board, county officials, Senator Embry and myself are all working together to be proactive to help make this designation a possibility. Hopefully by making it a "˜High Priority Corridor' the process will be sped up so that we can attract businesses to locate in the region."
Gary Jones, director of the Muhlenberg Alliance for Progress, said, "This Interstate 369 designation for the Wendell H. Ford Parkway will be another piece of the economic puzzle we are trying to assemble in Muhlenberg and Ohio counties. The word "˜parkway' has many different connotations across the nation, but everyone knows what an interstate highway is. It will definitely help us in our marketing efforts going forward."
Scott Lewis, state representative for Ohio County, said, "This designation of this stretch of the Western Kentucky Parkway as a spur of I-69 is terrific news for our area's infrastructure and will highlight our attractiveness for new economic development and industry. I want to thank Congressman Comer and Sen. McConnell for all of their work to push this on the federal level, as it will be a tremendous benefit to our communities."
Yes, the number should be I-x69 with x=an even number. Hopefully AASHTO or FHWA would make this determination.
I'm surprised, though, that the proposal doesn't extend the interstate designation all the way to I-65. If that were done, several folks in the forum have suggested that the parkway could be designated as an extension of I-71 rather than as a spur of I-69. Or, I suppose, it could be I-68.
I sent a letter to Rep. Guthrie suggesting the I-71 extension. He has been a big help in getting 165 done, so perhaps he can get things rolling. Hopefully the idea will be given a chance.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 07, 2019, 05:12:46 PM
Yes, the number should be I-x69 with x=an even number. Hopefully AASHTO or FHWA would make this determination.
I'm surprised, though, that the proposal doesn't extend the interstate designation all the way to I-65. If that were done, several folks in the forum have suggested that the parkway could be designated as an extension of I-71 rather than as a spur of I-69. Or, I suppose, it could be I-68.
I am surprised they didn't extended it either, except that Congressman's district (who proposed it) ends in county where it ends. Also surprised because the only "bow tie" toll booth interchange on WK Parkway is in the area they want to up grade.
I'd much rather this be an I-71 extension and I-369 saved for the Audubon Parkway (wasn't the latter proposed at one time?).
I agree, should be renumbered
I would express my opinion of Congressman Jamie Comer here, but it would probably be deleted. Suffice it to say that I'm not a fan.
That being said, I've long said that the WK should be I-58.
I always thought WK could be an even 2di in the 50s, and perhaps extended over the BG if they ever connect it to anything.
Quote from: WKDAVE on April 07, 2019, 05:01:15 PM
Doesn't this "violate" naming rules? Shouldn't it be an even first number since it connects two interstates?
For example I-205 connects I-5 to I-580 in CA.
The Even-Odd 3DI "Rules" are more "Guidelines" anyway
IL tends to view Odd 3DIs as touching the Parent once - IL's I-155 (I-55 to I-74) and I-355 (I-80 to I-290, crossing I-55 and I-88 en route) connect multiple interstates. IL's other Odd 3DIs are more like true Spurs (I-190/O'Hare Airport Spur and I-172/Quincy Spur). But they all only touch the Parent once. Kentucky may be eyeing this numbering theory with a proposed I-369 designation
Then again, coming soon new I-490 in IL will only touch Parent I-90 once, just north of O'Hare, once completed
Take PA's I-376 (Touches I-76 twice!) and I-476 (Touches I-76 only once!)...The only explanation I have is Guidelines
I'm guessing 369 would end at 165? But why not extend the routing to Elizabethtown/I-65, if they're so adamant about converting the parkways to interstates?
I like I-71 because it fits pretty nicely with the existing route from Louisville to Cleveland. I don't know how much economic benefit will come from it, but it's worth a shot.
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on April 08, 2019, 01:50:13 PM
I like I-71 because it fits pretty nicely with the existing route from Louisville to Cleveland. I don't know how much economic benefit will come from it, but it's worth a shot.
^
I would have prefered Interstate 269. I think any Interstate designation on the WKP should go from Interstate 69/169 all the way to Interstate 65. Stopping future 369 at 165 seems half-assed to me.
I like the I-71 idea. Or, if that doesn't work, they could just use I-169. It will be a little weird when it "bumps" off of I-69 (and probably violating some numbering conventions in the process (haven't checked)), but it would save I-369 for the Audubon.
Out of curiosity, is there anything preventing an interstate designation all the way out to Versailles/Lexington area?
Quote from: mvak36 on April 08, 2019, 04:47:09 PM
I like the I-71 idea. Or, if that doesn't work, they could just use I-169. It will be a little weird when it "bumps" off of I-69 (and probably violating some numbering conventions in the process (haven't checked)), but it would save I-369 for the Audubon.
Out of curiosity, is there anything preventing an interstate designation all the way out to Versailles/Lexington area?
Technically, nothing that hasn't already cropped up with conversion of KY parkways -- although the abrupt Bluegrass terminus at US 60 is a bit awkward -- particularly if HB's suggestion of an even 2di in the 50's were to be considered. Maybe if the Interstate designation could somehow be shunted up an upgraded US 127 to I-64 at Frankfort -- a trunk designation could be considered. Otherwise, I'd tend to favor the I-71 extension, with the option of the Bluegrass as I-365.
And I'm surprised that the Owensboro backers didn't pipe up with an odd 2di (I-63, anyone?) for the combined Natcher and Audubon, with the US 60 bypass as a connector (with interchange modifications, of course) in order to sate their longstanding desire to be located on a trunk Interstate.
Quote from: mvak36 on April 08, 2019, 04:47:09 PM
I like the I-71 idea. Or, if that doesn't work, they could just use I-169. It will be a little weird when it "bumps" off of I-69 (and probably violating some numbering conventions in the process (haven't checked)), but it would save I-369 for the Audubon.
Out of curiosity, is there anything preventing an interstate designation all the way out to Versailles/Lexington area?
They'd probably just rebuild the SE quadrant of the existing 69/Pennyrile/WKP interchange to look like the NW part.
Quote from: mvak36 on April 08, 2019, 04:47:09 PM
Out of curiosity, is there anything preventing an interstate designation all the way out to Versailles/Lexington area?
Two substandard interchanges at the former locations of toll booths on the BG -- KY 52 at Boston and KY 55 at Bloomfield. Also, the loop ramp from the WK to northbound I-65, which would be used for a short concurrency if the WK and BG parkways became a single interstate.
Quote from: mvak36 on April 08, 2019, 04:47:09 PM
I like the I-71 idea. Or, if that doesn't work, they could just use I-169. It will be a little weird when it "bumps" off of I-69 (and probably violating some numbering conventions in the process (haven't checked)), but it would save I-369 for the Audubon.
I-169 has already been reserved for the balance of the Pennyrile Pkwy from I-24 through Hopkinsville to I-69. Of course it has its share of upgrades that need to be funded before those signs can be posted (obsolete toll booth cloverleaf interchange at KY 1682, and general substandardness from Exit 30 up to I-69), but once they program funding for improvements, they can throw up those I-169 signs.
But yeah, I like the I-71 extension idea too. Or I-58 would work as well, but only if the BG Pkwy is also included. And maybe I-58 could just end at US 60 in Versailles just to prove a point. It's going to intersect 4 other interstates along its path as it is. Does it really have to end at one? Just look at I-26 in Kingsport, TN.
Quote from: wriddle082 on April 10, 2019, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on April 08, 2019, 04:47:09 PM
I like the I-71 idea. Or, if that doesn't work, they could just use I-169. It will be a little weird when it "bumps" off of I-69 (and probably violating some numbering conventions in the process (haven't checked)), but it would save I-369 for the Audubon.
I-169 has already been reserved for the balance of the Pennyrile Pkwy from I-24 through Hopkinsville to I-69. Of course it has its share of upgrades that need to be funded before those signs can be posted (obsolete toll booth cloverleaf interchange at KY 1682, and general substandardness from Exit 30 up to I-69), but once they program funding for improvements, they can throw up those I-169 signs.
I think his idea was to extend the existing I-169, hence the mention of "bumping" I-69.
Quote
But yeah, I like the I-71 extension idea too. Or I-58 would work as well, but only if the BG Pkwy is also included. And maybe I-58 could just end at US 60 in Versailles just to prove a point. It's going to intersect 4 other interstates along its path as it is. Does it really have to end at one? Just look at I-26 in Kingsport, TN.
I-26 connects to the other interstate in the area. I-58 wouldn't. The interstates are supposed to be a system, not just a bunch of random freeways with shields slapped on them. Plus IMO short spurs are more acceptable than long ones, which IMO should be avoided unless there's nothing in the area to connect to, and even then I'm more accepting on the edges of the system (I-40 NC) than in the interior (I-44 OK/TX).
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2019, 01:36:15 PM
Quote
But yeah, I like the I-71 extension idea too. Or I-58 would work as well, but only if the BG Pkwy is also included. And maybe I-58 could just end at US 60 in Versailles just to prove a point. It's going to intersect 4 other interstates along its path as it is. Does it really have to end at one? Just look at I-26 in Kingsport, TN.
I-26 connects to the other interstate in the area. I-58 wouldn't. The interstates are supposed to be a system, not just a bunch of random freeways with shields slapped on them. Plus IMO short spurs are more acceptable than long ones, which IMO should be avoided unless there's nothing in the area to connect to, and even then I'm more accepting on the edges of the system (I-40 NC) than in the interior (I-44 OK/TX).
AASHTO rejected the extension of I-26 signage from I-81 to Kingsport, but Congress mandated it in the SAFE Act in 2005.
Unless there are realistic plans afoot to connect the Bluegrass to either (or both) I-64 or I-75 -- and by that I mean a viable (physically and politically) alignment identified -- I wouldn't consider a 2di for that route; there's enough such "dead ends" in the current network already. A 3di like, as mentioned previously, I-365, would certainly suffice if an I-designation is ever sought for that facility as is. Still think a I-71 extension using I-65 as a connector would be the best bet for the remainder of the WKY -- and a highly appropriate number to use as an offshoot of the nascent I-69.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2019, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2019, 01:36:15 PM
Quote
But yeah, I like the I-71 extension idea too. Or I-58 would work as well, but only if the BG Pkwy is also included. And maybe I-58 could just end at US 60 in Versailles just to prove a point. It's going to intersect 4 other interstates along its path as it is. Does it really have to end at one? Just look at I-26 in Kingsport, TN.
I-26 connects to the other interstate in the area. I-58 wouldn't. The interstates are supposed to be a system, not just a bunch of random freeways with shields slapped on them. Plus IMO short spurs are more acceptable than long ones, which IMO should be avoided unless there's nothing in the area to connect to, and even then I'm more accepting on the edges of the system (I-40 NC) than in the interior (I-44 OK/TX).
AASHTO rejected the extension of I-26 signage from I-81 to Kingsport, but Congress mandated it in the SAFE Act in 2005.
I'd have to go back and check my photos, but I believe that there was a time period when both I-26 and I-181 were signed.
I still don't get the logic of having the interstate end at US 11W instead of continuing along the freeway a couple of miles north to the end of the freeway at the US 23/TN 36 interchange at the state line.
Tennessee has now actually signed the beginning of US 23's hidden state route at the US 11W exit.
But concerning the possibility of an interstate being designated for the BG Parkway, there are other examples of 2dis ending at US routes.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 11, 2019, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2019, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2019, 01:36:15 PM
Quote
But yeah, I like the I-71 extension idea too. Or I-58 would work as well, but only if the BG Pkwy is also included. And maybe I-58 could just end at US 60 in Versailles just to prove a point. It's going to intersect 4 other interstates along its path as it is. Does it really have to end at one? Just look at I-26 in Kingsport, TN.
I-26 connects to the other interstate in the area. I-58 wouldn't. The interstates are supposed to be a system, not just a bunch of random freeways with shields slapped on them. Plus IMO short spurs are more acceptable than long ones, which IMO should be avoided unless there's nothing in the area to connect to, and even then I'm more accepting on the edges of the system (I-40 NC) than in the interior (I-44 OK/TX).
AASHTO rejected the extension of I-26 signage from I-81 to Kingsport, but Congress mandated it in the SAFE Act in 2005.
I'd have to go back and check my photos, but I believe that there was a time period when both I-26 and I-181 were signed.
I still don't get the logic of having the interstate end at US 11W instead of continuing along the freeway a couple of miles north to the end of the freeway at the US 23/TN 36 interchange at the state line.
Tennessee has now actually signed the beginning of US 23's hidden state route at the US 11W exit.
But concerning the possibility of an interstate being designated for the BG Parkway, there are other examples of 2dis ending at US routes.
Did I-181 ever continue to the state line or did it end where I-26 ends now?
Quote from: hbelkins on April 11, 2019, 08:08:00 PM
But concerning the possibility of an interstate being designated for the BG Parkway, there are other examples of 2dis ending at US routes.
Yes, but not with a logical terminus at an Interstate as close as it would be at the east end of the Bluegrass. OTOH, a trunk designation may well call attention to that longstanding "gap" (not that the local NIMBY's would give a rat's ass about the perception of an incomplete corridor
vis-Ã -vis their own interests).
Now that the "camel's nose is through the door" regarding Interstate designation of seemingly more and more of the KY parkway system, it will definitely be interesting to kick back, pull up a chair, and watch how it plays out from here. On a related note -- let's just see if this puts any part of the I-66 proposal back into the arena.
I kind of expected the Western Kentucky Parkway to become interstate. Was part of my internal reasoning for the lack of exit renumbering on it. "oh they will probably make this an interstate too"
Three, six, nine, the goose drank wine.
The monkey chewed tobacco on the street car line.
The line broke
The monkey got choked
And they all went to heaven in a little row boat!
Rick
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 11, 2019, 08:54:29 PM
Did I-181 ever continue to the state line or did it end where I-26 ends now?
No, it ended at US 11W.
Sorry but I couldn't resist to bump off this thread. ^_^;;
If KYDOT couldn't make the remaining WK gap from I-165 to I-65 as I-71, would KYDOT try to pull a NYSDOT by number it as "KY-369" or having its secret number not secret anymore?
The Western Kentucky Parkway is planned to become Interstate 569 between Interstate 69/future Interstate 169 and Interstate 165. I still think future 569 should go all the way to Interstate 65.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 30, 2022, 07:16:03 PM
The Western Kentucky Parkway is planned to become Interstate 569 between Interstate 69/future Interstate 169 and Interstate 165. I still think future 569 should go all the way to Interstate 65.
I agree with those who believe I-71 should be extended southwest along I-65 and the WK all the way to 69/169. And at one point I thought they were going to designate I-369 for the Audubon Pkwy., but that may not be a priority for pursuing. They only have one former toll booth cloverleaf to reconstruct on that road to bring it up to standards, as well as the usual round of additional guardrails.
Agree with the above that an I-71 extension is better than a new 3di. It'll show I-71 as a SW-NE continuation of the also SW-NE I-69 corridor to the southwest to Ohio, western PA, western NY and parts of Ontario. Interestingly, If I-71 gets extended to the I-69/I-169 junction, that would make I-71 the longest interstate in KY, at 237 miles long.
Seems silly to end the I-569 at I-165. But they really should have proposed this as either an I-71 extension or perhaps a new even 5x, like I-56 or I-58. As for the Audubon Parkway becoming I-369, I'm assuming those plans are dead.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 01, 2022, 08:37:01 AM
Seems silly to end the I-569 at I-165. But they really should have proposed this as either an I-71 extension or perhaps a new even 5x, like I-56 or I-58. As for the Audubon Parkway becoming I-369, I'm assuming those plans are dead.
Audubon cannot become interstate spur until it connects to interstate. Therefore no work will be done until the state gets closer to extending I-69 past Audubon interchange to US 60. Since, as has been pointed out, the necessary upgrades are minor, it will not take long to get Audubon up to standards after I-69 is extended.
Quote from: WKDAVE on May 01, 2022, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 01, 2022, 08:37:01 AM
Seems silly to end the I-569 at I-165. But they really should have proposed this as either an I-71 extension or perhaps a new even 5x, like I-56 or I-58. As for the Audubon Parkway becoming I-369, I’m assuming those plans are dead.
Audubon cannot become interstate spur until it connects to interstate. Therefore no work will be done until the state gets closer to extending I-69 past Audubon interchange to US 60. Since, as has been pointed out, the necessary upgrades are minor, it will not take long to get Audubon up to standards after I-69 is extended.
Wouldn’t be the first time an Interstate doesn’t connect to another Interstate. See I-69E, I-69C, and I-2. Yes I know those three connect to each other, but they don’t touch the rest of the system.
FWIW, the "Future I-69 Spur" signs have been gone from the Audubon for several years.
I don't get the point of a lengthy overlap with another interstate just to give the section of the WK between I-165 and I-65 a number as an extension of I-71. Whatever number the route between the Pennyrile and the Natcher becomes should be extended to I-65. The only tollbooth cloverleaf on that section (at Leitchfield) has already been converted to a diamond, so few if any changes should be necessary to bring it up to interstate standards.
If Interstate 71 were extended south along Interstate 65 to the eastern terminus of the Western Kentucky Parkway, the co-currency of the two Interstates would be about 45.3 miles long. Not the longest co-currency in the country (Interstates 80 and 90 run together for 278.4 miles in Indiana and Ohio), but it would be a significant co-currency for the state of Kentucky (Interstates 24 and 69 are co-current for about 16.7 miles, and Interstate 71 is co-current with Interstate 75 for about 20 miles). That's probably why the Western Kentucky Parkway is becoming another 3di of Interstate 69.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 03, 2022, 04:14:51 PM
If Interstate 71 were extended south along Interstate 65 to the eastern terminus of the Western Kentucky Parkway, the co-currency of the two Interstates would be about 45.3 miles long. Not the longest co-currency in the country (Interstates 80 and 90 run together for 278.4 miles in Indiana and Ohio), but it would be a significant co-currency for the state of Kentucky (Interstates 24 and 69 are co-current for about 16.7 miles, and Interstate 71 is co-current with Interstate 75 for about 20 miles). That's probably why the Western Kentucky Parkway is becoming another 3di of Interstate 69.
If that would be the reason, I would feel it is a very poor reason not to have I-71 badged on the Western Kentucky Parkway for a 3di. Kentucky is planning too many of those 3di's for my taste. I would have rather KY had done the North Carolina thing and made what is now I-165 and the Audubon Parkway a 2d. If NC got I-73, I-74, I-89, and I-42 approved, that for sure would have been approved (Take your pick 52, 54, 56, 58, 60-strike that, 62). I can see the I-169 to Hopkinsville, but that is still a bit of a stretch. The Cumberland Parkway 3d also would be too much. I'd just as well have them badge it the same as the 2d from Henderson to Bowling Green and extend it to Somerset (it will at some time in the future...perhaps 22nd century) make it to I-75.
I just used I-24, I-69, WK Pkwy and I-65 to get from Paducah to Louisville yesterday. Being two major cities in the state, it would make sense to have a single route number connecting those two cities, or at least as far as I-69.
The combined distance from the I-69/I-169 interchange at Madisonville to I-65/I-75 in Lexington is about 190 miles. It's fairly short for a 2DI interstate, but there are plenty of shorter ones. Like others, I struggle with whether it has to have an Interstate route number at all - and what type.
Here's where I'm going to go whole-hog fictional and state there's a logic for a single Interstate highway designation connecting Lexington to Wichita, KS. I deem it I-46, and it's going places! Namely:
- US-400 corridor east of Wichita to Joplin, MO
- Concurrency w/ I-44 to Springfield, MO
- US-60 corridor east to Sikeston, MO (I-55 @ I-57)
- New-terrain Mississippi River crossing from roughly Charleston, MO to Wickliffe, KY.
- New-terrain corridor from Wickliffe, KY to Paducah, KY
- Co-signed with I-24 and I-69 east to I-169 @ Madisonville
- W KY Parkway east to Elizabethtown
- Bluegrass Pkwy east to Lexington
In a lot of ways, this is just a pretty line on a map. But it provides an additional important Mississippi River crossing, ties into the future I-30/I-57 corridor through Arkansas to connect to Dallas/Fort Worth, and adds E-W mobility in a region that's pretty light on it. It would also provide another path to the NE for freight to help relieve traffic on I-40 and I-81.
Another option - this wouldn't be a half-bad way to extend I-30 eastward - extend it along the US-67 corridor currently slated for I-57, then eastward to Paducah and along to Lexington. The big missing ingredient is the Sikeston -> Paducah stretch, and it would probably attract enough revenue to make the numbers work for a tollway.
Probably should keep fictional in fictional.
Fair enough. But if I'm going to the trouble of slapping an Interstate shield on a highway, I'm going to have ambitions beyond putting an Interstate shield between some podunk town and some other podunk town. Unlike Tennessee, there's no single Interstate route connecting the western and eastern ends of Kentucky. A single route connecting Paducah and Lexington is a decent start, but a new Mississippi River crossing suddenly opens up some opportunities for Paducah and the rest of western KY.
Slapping a 3DI shield on just the Western Kentucky Parkway without some logical inter-connectivity makes it basically an Interstate to nowhere.
The western terminus of the Western Kentucky Parkway was Interstate 24, a major regional interstate; it now terminates at Interstate 69 further east, which is becoming a major regional interstate in the Midwest. At its eastern terminus is Interstate 65, a major interstate, and only a mile from the Bluegrass Parkway. While much of the Parkway is very rural, it once crossed through some prosperous coal mining areas that began to decline in the 1980s. It now sees its biggest growth in Elizabethtown where the new Ford SK battery plant (with its 5,000 jobs) is being built. Think of the scale of Toyota at Georgetown back in 1989 - that's what's coming to Elizabethtown. Certainly not a "podunk" town.
Quote from: seicer on November 14, 2022, 08:28:48 PM
The western terminus of the Western Kentucky Parkway was Interstate 24, a major regional interstate; it now terminates at Interstate 69 further east, which is becoming a major regional interstate in the Midwest. At its eastern terminus is Interstate 65, a major interstate, and only a mile from the Bluegrass Parkway. While much of the Parkway is very rural, it once crossed through some prosperous coal mining areas that began to decline in the 1980s. It now sees its biggest growth in Elizabethtown where the new Ford SK battery plant (with its 5,000 jobs) is being built. Think of the scale of Toyota at Georgetown back in 1989 - that's what's coming to Elizabethtown. Certainly not a "podunk" town.
NC would get an I- for far less reason than this.
Quote from: JREwing78 on November 14, 2022, 08:15:07 PM
Fair enough. But if I'm going to the trouble of slapping an Interstate shield on a highway, I'm going to have ambitions beyond putting an Interstate shield between some podunk town and some other podunk town. Unlike Tennessee, there's no single Interstate route connecting the western and eastern ends of Kentucky. A single route connecting Paducah and Lexington is a decent start, but a new Mississippi River crossing suddenly opens up some opportunities for Paducah and the rest of western KY.
There is no requirement that every state get a single cross-state interstate in a cardinal direction. As it is, it is possible to cross Kentucky from west-to-east while staying entirely on limited access roads. Drivers don't have a single cross-state route in neighboring Virginia either. Can't go N-S in Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, or Minnesota the entire length of the state on interstates at all, though all but Nebraska can at least cross N-S on four lane highways for essentially the entire length (there's not enough traffic to International Falls to four-lane north of Hibbing-Virginia).
That said, I do agree a highway connecting Kentucky and Missouri across the Mississippi connecting US 60 across Missouri with the Kentucky freeways and parkways at Paducah would be a good thing, giving travelers an alternate from the heavily trafficked and underbuilt I-44 (which needs six lanes due to trucks clogging up the roads over all the Ozark hills between St Louis and Springfield MO). But that's a discussion for fictional.
Remember, there was a huge battle over what route the proposed westward expansion of I-66 would take. There was a huge push by central Kentucky interests to route I-66 concurrently from West Virginia down I-64, somehow get it over to the Bluegrass Parkway, and then down the BG and WK Parkways to I-24. But Congressman Daniel Boone Hal Rogers prevailed to get I-66 routed across the Cumberland Parkway, with improvements to the HR Parkway and a new-terrain alignment from Hazard past Pikeville to West Virginia.
When I was doing research for Interstate 24's crossing of the Ohio River at Paducah, I came across articles referencing proposed paths of that interstate back in the late 1960s/1970s. It wasn't set in stone until fairly late - with alternatives going westward toward Cairo (which was much more important back then) and others going north and west by Paducah.
Even today, the bridges at Cairo are well under capacity. The replacement US 51/US 60 bridge between Cairo and Wickliffe will only be two lanes - which is more than adequate e.
Somewhere buried in an earlier forum thread on this site, I linked to a newspaper article from archives that I had found that discussed the alternatives for I-24 and the final agreement that led to the current routing for I-24, as well as the creation of I-155 between Tennessee and Missouri (referred to in those days as I-24W), which was part of the compromise agreement. I think the final routings were agreed to in early 1964, and brokered by LBJ with the governors of the affected states.