AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: truejd on August 05, 2010, 10:32:59 AM

Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: truejd on August 05, 2010, 10:32:59 AM
Does anyone know the status of the portion of I-69 that would connect Henderson, KY and Evansville, IN?  I've read about plans for it in the local newspapers around there but haven't heard anything in a while.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on August 05, 2010, 12:49:49 PM
It's gonna have to be a toll bridge neither Indiana or Kentucky have the money to build it especially with the Louisville Bridges Project eating up tons of money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 05, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
There's also the Brent Spence Bridge (I-71/75) replacement project that I-69 will/is competing against.  I would say that the I-69 bridge is the lowest priority of the major Ohio River bridge projects in Kentucky - but maybe higher over any new bridge near Wickliffe.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on August 12, 2010, 07:09:23 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 13, 2010, 01:42:27 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

Seemed like I-65 was six lanes for most of the way from Nashville to Louisville when I drove it back in December.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2010, 02:14:04 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

Seemed like I-65 was six lanes for most of the way from Nashville to Louisville when I drove it back in December.

I-65 is six lanes from the state line north to the vicinity of Exit 43, which is the Cumberland Parkway, and then from Elizabethtown (Exit 93) to the state line. There is a 50-mile stretch that is four lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 13, 2010, 09:12:09 PM
Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

Seemed like I-65 was six lanes for most of the way from Nashville to Louisville when I drove it back in December.

I-65 is six lanes from the state line north to the vicinity of Exit 43, which is the Cumberland Parkway, and then from Elizabethtown (Exit 93) to the state line. There is a 50-mile stretch that is four lanes.

Thought I-65 was 6 lanes north Bowling Green, just couldn't remember where it ran out.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on August 16, 2010, 12:24:04 PM
That fifty mile stretch has been the area of some horrible crossovers. Earlier this year a Tractor Trailer crossed over just north of the six laning and killed 10 people in a Church van on the other side. I have seen plans for a five mile stretch starting next spring and they have slowly spit out the money for ROW and plans. But this area is in dire need of upgrades.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 20, 2010, 12:38:59 PM
Does anyone know the status of the portion of I-69 that would connect Henderson, KY and Evansville, IN?  I've read about plans for it in the local newspapers around there but haven't heard anything in a while.
Here's a link to an article in yesterday's Evansville Courier-Press which states that I-69 Ohio River Bridge funding split will be 2/3 Kentucky and 1/3 Indiana: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/18/no-headline---18a04i-69/

Quote
The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 12, 2011, 10:50:59 AM
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation."
According to article in today's Evansville Courier Press, the cost estimate for the bridge plus the new roadway to tie into the Pennyrile Parkway has risen to $1.4 billion:

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/

The article indicates that Western Kentucky and Indiana groups have hired Appian, Inc., an Indianapolis firm specializing in transportation lobbying, to lobby for federal funding for the project.  The groups concede that tolls will comprise part of the funding, but will only cover 26% to 43% of the cost.  The groups also acknowledge that, even with the lobbying effort starting now, the bridge is AT LEAST a decade away.

With that timetable, no telling how many billions of dollars the bridge would ultimately cost.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Daniel Fiddler on March 17, 2011, 03:59:31 PM
Was reading in the latest STIP for Kentucky today that Kentucky must keep the feds abreast of the big dog projects in Kentucky aka Louisville Bridges Project, Brent Spence Bridge, I-69 and I-66. Of those I see the first two as definite in the next ten years and a maybe on the third and dead on the forth. Kentucky should use money intended for I-66 on I-65 (six laning and Jersey's) between Bowling Green and Elizabethtown which is very dangerous and scene of some horrific traffic accidents recently.

I too agree with this statement.  I - 66 to me does not seem to be a feasible road.  I think the money spent for I - 66 would be better spent on completing the I - 65 widening as well as my proposed Cumberland Plateau Turnpike (see the section for fictional highways), which combined with the northern and eastern arcs of the Chattanooga Beltway (also in that section) would reduce the distance between Atlanta and Louisville by 75 miles.

I definitely support the Louisville bridges project because they badly need it and the I - 69 because it's essentially done except for the bridge between Evansville and Henderson and maybe a few interchange modifications.  The Brent Spence bridge I support more than I do I - 66 for sure, but not as high as I do the Louisville bridges, the I - 65 widening, or I - 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on March 18, 2011, 09:46:08 PM
I put I-66 as dead because it has no polictical will behind it at this time. I-65 has a good chance at becoming a reality by this summer (read Scotty's Construction Company's unique offer to Kentucky).  The Bridges Project might get going by next year but I would prefer the East End first at six lanes to see how much traffic it can take off downtown Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 01, 2011, 06:24:19 AM
During yesterday's announcement about I-69 signs going up in Kentucky this fall, Gov. Beshear was asked about the Ohio River Bridge.  Basically, he provided no real news other than speculation about the creation of a new authority to figure out financing for the project:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/01/no-headline---ev_i69/

Quote
... However, the governor couldn’t forecast when the toughest portion of Kentucky’s I-69 project – financing and building a bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville, estimated a few years ago to cost $1.4 billion – will be completed or even begin.
Beshear said leaders in the Henderson-Evansville area likely will establish a special authority to develop a financing plan, as is already taking place for a planned pair of Ohio River bridges at Louisville ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 15, 2011, 12:58:44 PM
The I-69 Ohio River Bridge is still touted as a top priority for western Kentucky, but financial reality and tough competition from other Ohio River bridge projects are also acknowledged:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=313573

Quote
The legislature has cut $1.3 billion out of the state budget over the past two-and-a-half years, state Sen. Dorsey Ridley told the Green River Area Development District's board of directors Wednesday.
"We've cut all the low-hanging fruit," the Henderson Democrat said. "Any additional cuts will be very difficult and will be long in healing."
"The next budget will be very difficult," Rep. Jim Gooch said. "The governor says it will likely be the most difficult we've faced." ...
Ridley said upgrading part of the Pennyrile, Western Kentucky and Purchase parkways to become I-69 and building a new bridge over the Ohio River at Henderson "is the next large infrastructure project for economic development in our area. But the bridge is the big cost factor."
Gooch warned that the I-69 bridge will be competing for funding with bridges in Louisville and northern Kentucky.
"It'll be very tough to do them all," he said ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on December 31, 2011, 10:24:08 AM
My guess is this will be a Breezewood situation for many years to come. Too bad the existing US 41 bridge can't be used for I-69 for a while, but the situation on the Henderson side would make that nearly impossible. I assume KYTC will be the lead agency for the I-69 bridge and approach project, right (therefore responsible for financing it)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 31, 2011, 10:39:42 AM
My guess is this will be a Breezewood situation for many years to come. Too bad the existing US 41 bridge can't be used for I-69 for a while, but the situation on the Henderson side would make that nearly impossible. I assume KYTC will be the lead agency for the I-69 bridge and approach project, right (therefore responsible for financing it)?
The approximate 15-month old link in post quoted below is still "live"; I assume 2/3 share means KYTC will take the lead:
Here's a link to an article in yesterday's Evansville Courier-Press which states that I-69 Ohio River Bridge funding split will be 2/3 Kentucky and 1/3 Indiana: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/18/no-headline---18a04i-69/
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on December 31, 2011, 11:02:05 AM
Yeah, that would make sense. So why would the Louisville bridge projects be split 50-50?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on January 01, 2012, 09:11:37 AM
I think they are split because Indiana has the money and wants to go now. Kentucky just wants to hide it's money problems. With the twin projects at least one will get done and that's the badly needed east end bridge. I think both states will be shocked how many folks use the east end bridge to travel to Louisville. I will use it to travel even to the Highlands area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 01, 2012, 10:58:14 AM
The presence of that bridge would certainly influence my choice of how to get to Indianapolis. I don't like I-75, but right now I-75 to I-275 to I-74 is my route of choice, primarily because of downtown Louisville. That East End Bridge would make me more likely to use I-65.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 19, 2012, 10:35:29 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jan/19/no-headline---ev_highways/) points out that the 2012 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/program-Management/pages/2012-recommended-highway-plan.aspx) does not propose any funding for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge over the next six years:
Quote
For the first time ever, a Kentucky governor is calling for replacing the narrow U.S. 60 bridge across the Green River at Spottsville.
It's among more than $250 million in highway projects Gov. Steve Beshear is proposing for Henderson, Union and Webster counties over the next six years, although much of the work is so far off that he will be out of office before dirt is turned.
The six-year road plan is subject to revision and approval by the 2012 General Assembly, currently in session.
Beshear's recommendations include rebuilding the Robards and Sebree interchanges on the Pennyrile/Breathitt Parkway to help prepare the parkway to become part of Interstate 69.
But no funding is proposed for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville ...

Under Kentucky law, the governor sends a highway plan to the General Assembly every two years. It includes a blueprint for spending Road Fund revenues that will be appropriated in the new biennium – 2012-2014 in this case – and planning for the four "out years" beyond the biennium ...

Here are some highlights of the governor's proposal ...

I-69 routing: $1 million to review the planned route, or "alignment," for new I-69 roadway from the proposed Ohio River bridge to the Pennyrile/Breathitt Parkway.
Plans have called for the I-69 bridge to cross the river east of the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges and tie into the Pennyrile south of Henderson.
No funding is proposed for the bridge itself during the next six years ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 06, 2012, 09:42:59 PM
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion, according to Ted Merryman, the I-69 Project Manager for Kentucky.
"Kentucky will be responsible for about two-thirds of the funding and Indiana will be responsible for a third of the funding," Merryman said in his overview presentation."
According to article in today's Evansville Courier Press, the cost estimate for the bridge plus the new roadway to tie into the Pennyrile Parkway has risen to $1.4 billion:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/

Surprisingly, this March 6, 2012 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/06/i-69-improvements-begin-on-western-ky-parkway/) provides a cost estimate for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and the new roadway to connect to the Pennyrile that is significantly less than the above two estimates:

Quote
The most challenging link for I-69 in western Kentucky will be constructing a new bridge across the Ohio River east of Henderson and constructing new roadway to connect the bridge with the Pennyrile south of town. The project has been projected to cost $600 million to $800 million, a funding challenge that Kentucky and Indiana officials haven't resolved.

I suppose it is possible that the $600 million to $800 million estimate is for the bridge alone, although the wording in the article seems to indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Stephane Dumas on March 12, 2012, 10:01:25 AM
Too bad then we didn't have a time machine, we could had gone back in time to convince KYDOT to end the Pennyrile parkway just south of the bridge instead of the current end or telling KTDOT to do more acquisitions during that era to upgrade that little gap of US-41 into full freeway with service roads.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on March 12, 2012, 07:38:18 PM
I think if you want to point fingers, go back to pre-1968 when Indiana and Kentucky were applying for a share of the 1500 new interstate mileage that added to the system at that time.  The original proposal for I-63/I-164 was to build a new Ohio River Bridge and to connect to US 41/ Pennyrile Pkwy, fairly close to the current I-69 proposal.

From my understanding, the Feds truncated that more ambitious plan back to a 12-mile spur between I-64 SR 66/Division Street.  Indiana originally applied to construct an I-63 from south of the Ohio River north to Brazil, IN, providing a route to Indianapolis, via I-70 the rest of the way.  I-164 got its proposed route extended from Division St. to US 41 south of Evansville around 1980.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 12, 2012, 10:59:29 PM
The parallel US 41 bridge wasn't built until the late 1960s. Perhaps they should have built a new four-lane span elsewhere and left the US 41 crossing as a two-lane one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 11, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/
The article indicates that Western Kentucky and Indiana groups have hired Appian, Inc., an Indianapolis firm specializing in transportation lobbying, to lobby for federal funding for the project. The groups concede that tolls will comprise part of the funding, but will only cover 26% to 43% of the cost.

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Quote
I am writing this letter to you on the morning (significance to come) of Tuesday, Feb. 29, one day after returning from a trip to Washington, D.C., with a delegation of business leaders from Southwest Indiana and Northwest Kentucky to discuss our region's needs with federal officials. Our visit had a heavy focus on advocating for the completion of Interstate 69 within Indiana and Kentucky, as well as along the entire national corridor, and construction of a new Ohio River bridge linking Evansville to Henderson.
The visit included a luncheon meeting that was attended by influencers from many parts of the eight state I-69 corridor. Speakers included Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas; Gov. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky; Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky; Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear; Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Michael Cline; Jennifer Shepard, executive director of the Alliance for I-69 in Texas; and Mike Schopmeyer, past chairman of the board of directors for The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana.
During visits with our elected officials to discuss the highway and bridge project, we stayed on message. Key points of our discussions included:
Designate Interstate 69 a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill. This designation will make segments of the highway throughout the corridor eligible for programmatic funding from the Federal Highway Administration and partially mitigate the need for lawmakers to ask for large earmarks to help build the road;
Have the Federal Highway Administration appoint an Interstate 69 Project Manager. This has been done in the past for other multistate highway projects and there is enough progress being made along the entire national corridor – and awareness of the importance of the project to the nation's economic competitiveness – that a Project Manager is warranted;
The construction of a new bridge between Evansville and Henderson is critically important not only to our economic region, but the entire multistate corridor;
The importance of tolling and allowing public/private partnerships to be established to help fund our nation's infrastructure needs.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Bridges, or more commonly referred to as the twin bridges by those of us who call the region home, were also discussed fairly extensively during our visit. We talked about the age of the bridges (northbound bridge was built in 1932; southbound bridge was built in 1966), quality of construction, usage (approximately 40,000 vehicles per day), the fact that the bridges are not earthquake or tornado proof, and the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both bridges would have on our regional economy.
Which brings me full circle to the significance of the morning of February 29. Most of us watched in a state of great concern as the weather forecasters told us of an approaching tornado, while warning sirens wailed in the distance. It was a few minutes before 6 a.m. The tornado was taking aim at our fellow citizens and the twin bridges. I could hardly believe that I had just returned from Washington, D.C., to discuss our infrastructure needs the evening before, and was now sitting in my family room watching a very serious storm approach. Thankfully a catastrophe was avoided. No lives were lost. Property damage was significant but not great. The twin bridges remained standing.
We need a new bridge. We will make it happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on April 12, 2012, 06:59:14 AM
This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Has there ever been a project manager at the national level to handle an interstate project that spans multiple states or any other infrastructure project?

Maybe I-49 should be handled in this way, too.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on April 12, 2012, 05:15:18 PM
Having a dedicated FHWA Project Manager is a legitimate management strategy and has been used on several projects in the past.  On a bi-state project either a PM is appointed and works with both states' FHWA staff; or, one of the state FHWA divisions takes it on with its regular staff as the lead, with the other state a FHWA cooperating partner.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on April 14, 2012, 09:21:22 AM
If having a FHWA Project Manager speeds it up all the better. Hopefully by 2015 the drive is ready.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sr641 on May 07, 2012, 11:48:24 AM
I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2012, 08:33:33 PM
I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time

we dont care because you dont use punctuation or grammer
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: truejd on May 08, 2012, 10:59:18 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 08, 2012, 11:06:00 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 09, 2012, 10:26:42 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2012, 02:15:44 AM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts

Speaking of hammering home a point, Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/may/10/evansville-mayor-wants-to-see-more-cooperation/) to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:

Quote
New Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is calling for increased cooperation between his city of Evansville and Henderson on issues ranging from economic development to establishing a mass transit connection between the cities .... "Over the years, we've become much more aware of the importance of approaching economic development from a more regional standpoint," he said .... "I think we are at the point where we can step back and say, OK, what's the next step? What's the next logical phase to take this to our region, and not just four counties in southwestern Indiana, so our region – the Tri-state – can truly benefit," Winnecke said .... Meanwhile, concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville." ....

In other words, work like crazy on both fronts to get the Indiana and Kentucky delegations to push hard for the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on May 19, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts

And never use apostrophe's in your plural's.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on May 19, 2012, 12:42:22 PM
in less your a greengrocer
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sr641 on May 20, 2012, 10:23:16 AM
I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on May 20, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
The bridge isn't to interstate standards.  And though it's on the level where I would say "just use it and not care", I don't think the FHWA agrees with me.  Plus the road on either side is just a surface street, and it would probably cost more to upgrade than to build a new alignment.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: adt1982 on May 20, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.
Oh, I don't know.  It might be nice to have a bridge that actually has shoulders and meets interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on May 20, 2012, 03:13:23 PM
Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on May 21, 2012, 12:26:01 AM
Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.

I drove across the bridges when they had the 3+1 configuration going for repairs a few years ago. The backups on both sides of the bridge were lengthy, even though there were still four lanes available for travel. Anytime there is some sort of incident on the bridge or on either side, especially the south side, I hear traffic gets dog-knotted.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on May 21, 2012, 09:38:14 AM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on May 21, 2012, 12:08:07 PM
I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

Personally, I don't see why this changeover to I-69 shouldn't happen when the new terrain I-69 to Crane is opened. Other than new shields, mile markers, and exit numbers not much would need to be done. It would be pretty inexpensive.

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sd72667 on May 21, 2012, 04:48:01 PM
I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

Personally, I don't see why this changeover to I-69 shouldn't happen when the new terrain I-69 to Crane is opened. Other than new shields, mile markers, and exit numbers not much would need to be done. It would be pretty inexpensive.

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.
I think once the link from EV to Bloominton is open, there will be more movement to get a bridge finished right around the Green River Rd exit to the south. I'm sure they will obviously stay west where the Green River flows into the Ohio River. After looking at Google Maps, it's a straight shot to the Pennyrile from I-164, almost all farm fields. I hope it will be finished by the time Bloomington-Indy is finished.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2012, 08:53:04 PM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on May 22, 2012, 04:33:41 AM
Back in the 1970s when many Interstates were still being built, some states liberally signed the gaps with "TO I-xx" (where that was equal to or was the primary designation). The entire stretch of I-69 from Indy to Bloomington and from Evansville to Madisonville could be signed that way. For that matter, it could be signed as such down to Memphis.

I guess it comes down to the question of whether or not the corridor is close enough to being a viable long distance alternative to existing Interstates. The section of SR 37 in Indy and US 41 in Henderson are slow and congested, but they are also pretty short. I would say a case could be made to for that strategy if it is allowed. Is there any guidance on that? Did that require FHWA approval?

If that is not allowed, then I can see the argument for leaving I-164 as is, but am still not convinced a long spur to the north designated I-69 and a shorter spur to the south marked as I-164 is any better than the entire 115 miles or so having the same number.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on May 22, 2012, 05:31:43 PM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2012, 07:50:28 PM
On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.
But that's different, because there's no planned extension of the highway. In this case, the rest of I-69 is coming along soon anyway. You'll have to change all the signs to reflect that the route continues past Evansville. You'll have to change mile markers and exit numbers because the new route won't hook around in a J shape.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 23, 2012, 11:26:51 PM
During yesterday's announcement about I-69 signs going up in Kentucky this fall, Gov. Beshear was asked about the Ohio River Bridge.  Basically, he provided no real news other than speculation about the creation of a new authority to figure out financing for the project:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/01/no-headline---ev_i69/
Quote
... However, the governor couldn’t forecast when the toughest portion of Kentucky’s I-69 project – financing and building a bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville, estimated a few years ago to cost $1.4 billion – will be completed or even begin.
Beshear said leaders in the Henderson-Evansville area likely will establish a special authority to develop a financing plan, as is already taking place for a planned pair of Ohio River bridges at Louisville ...
This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge ... emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges

In this opinion piece (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/23/time-to-move-on-new-i-69-bridge/), representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:

Quote
This month, I-69 advocacy groups from Indiana and Kentucky – Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky (C-LINK) – will meet in an annual joint session, bringing together community leaders from both sides of the river in a continued effort to advance the project that will provide new opportunities to all eight states in the I-69 corridor .... While the two groups have much to celebrate, their work will continue on a critical, yet still missing link: a new I-69 Ohio River bridge connecting Evansville, Ind., and Henderson, Ky.
At this time we are covered by two bridges, one northbound and one southbound, between Evansville and Henderson. These vital links see heavy traffic daily from local commuters, local business traffic and cross state commerce.
In the months and years ahead, as I-69 is completed in Indiana and Kentucky, this traffic will increase.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Twin Bridges have served our communities well. The east bridge was completed in 1932. The west bridge was open to traffic in 1966.
As sturdy and durable as these bridges have proven to be, they are getting old and will be further strained by increased I-69 traffic.
A new bridge project of this scope takes years and even decades to complete. As the bridges continue to age, interstate highway traffic will travel the bridges and through Henderson's U.S. 41 until our two states prioritize the identification of funding and construction of a new link.
The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.
The Evansville and Henderson metropolitan areas need this vital link to support the demands of a new interstate, provide relief to aging bridges and enhance the economic vitality of our region.

The advocacy groups for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge seem to be pursuing a steady public relations campaign for construction of the bridge.  Both INDOT and KYTC still have a lot on their respective plates, but it does seem like now would be a good time to at least form a bi-state authority and begin the process for revisiting the environmental review process.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
In this opinion piece (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/23/time-to-move-on-new-i-69-bridge/), representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:
Quote
The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.

David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/). He also injects a sense of urgency to do so because of perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:

Quote
Every once in a while I read something in the paper that I'd like to add an exclamation mark to. That was the case last Sunday when a guest column appeared concerning Interstate 69.
The point was: Now's the time to get moving on a new I-69 bridge between Henderson and Evansville.
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done. ....
They called on the two states' transportation departments "to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval."
It takes a long, long time to get a bridge studied, funded, studied some more, designed, studied a little more and finally built. The sooner we get started, the better.
There's another reason to act now.
With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.

Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2012, 08:57:08 PM
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done. .... it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.
Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....

This Indiana Public Media article (http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/i69-toll-bridge-expected-connect-indiana-kentucky-32500/#channel=f275605ece0162&origin=http%3A%2F%2Findianapublicmedia.org&channel_path=%2Fnews%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fdisqus-comment-system%2Fxd_receiver.htm%3Ffb_xd_fragment%23xd_sig%3Df3b127fe4b9667%26) expressly mentions a public-private patnership as probably being a component of using tolling as a funding mechanism for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

Quote
Plans for a bridge connecting Interstate 69 from Indiana to Kentucky are in the works.
The bridge, although it’s likely still many years from completion, is a joint project between the two states.
Executive Director of Hoosier Voices for I-69 Morgan Hutton says the new bridge will probably be funded through a public-private partnership, and become a toll-bridge.
“In this reality with gas tax revenues declining, which is the typical transportation funding mechanism, both sides of the river, in both Kentucky and Indiana, there is an acceptance that a toll may be needed to get that bridge completed,“ she says.

The slow-but-steady PR campaign continues ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSF on July 05, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
If it is a dollar or so each way for cash and far less for electronic tolls, i'd pay that toll to avoid Henderson/Evansville and the corridor of traffic llights from the start of the Pennyrile to I-64. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on July 06, 2012, 02:51:41 PM
Agree on that as I have many a late night cursing those lights. Traveling from STL to Bowling Green, Ky always involved those darn lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2012, 12:55:48 PM
Business leaders continue to talk about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  First, however, this opinion piece (http://www.tristate-media.com/warrick/community/community_news/article_41a748f6-dbdc-11e1-b05c-0019bb2963f4.html) has the Executive Director of the Warrick County Chamber of Commerce recounting a tour she had recently taken of I-69 construction in southern Indiana:

Quote
Last Friday, I had an opportunity to tour the construction along the new Interstate 69 route. As one travels north on I-164 and it turns into I-69, you can see the interstate stretch northward, it calls to be driven on and the opportunity to do just that was well worth being outside on a hot July day.
Our group, a mixture of business and government leaders, along with INDOT staff, met at S.R. 68 just past the “do not enter, road closed”  sign to begin our tour.
We traveled along the new interstate, taking some temporary off road trails to get around a couple of bridge structures still under construction. The lack of rain in this area has been a benefit to the construction companies as they work toward the planned November opening of sections 1 through 3 of I-69. It is amazing to see the progress on the road. After months of heavy earth moving, pavement is now going down at a quick pace. When traveling the interstate at 70 miles per hour, you don’t take notice of the detail that goes into the construction of each mile. Along one bridge, we stopped and were able to get up close to view the details of the expansion joints in the guardrails. They actually slide up to six inches to account for the bridge railing expanding and contracting with the temperature fluctuations of the day. ...

Hmmm... I wonder if INDOT would give a tour to a roadgeek group for up-close-and-personal observations?

Back to the bridge ... The Executive Director is not satisfied with just the current construction; she is also beating the drum for the bridge:

Quote
The completion of Interstate 69 has been a business and government goal for years. With the opening of the next sections it is ever important that we continue to work with business and government across the region and the Ohio River to link I-69 in Kentucky with I-69 in Indiana. This further expands our regional economic growth.

Staying on message...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on August 02, 2012, 05:39:35 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if INDOT would give a tour to a roadgeek group for up-close-and-personal observations?

I would not be too surprised if they would. This is a big PR thing - both to counter the anti-I-69 opinions and to build support for spending money to complete it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
With I-69 now completed from Evansville to Crane, and scheduled for completion from Crane to Bloomington in a couple of years, this TV video report (http://tristatehomepage.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=563402) examines the question of what should come next: I-69 from Bloomington-to-Indianapolis or the I-69 Ohio River bridge from Evansville to Henderson. Indiana Lieutenant Governor Elect Sue Ellsperman seems to indicate that Indiana wants to finish Bloomigton to Indianapolis first and then build the bridge:

Quote
"First and foremost," said Ellsperman, "we have to do our part, which is to get this completed and get the segments completed through Indianapolis [a]nd then absolutely working with our neighbors in Kentucky because the benefits are good for all of our communities."

The video has some footage of the US 41 twin bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 20, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
I think they're going to see a lot more need for the Ohio River crossing to be next in line.  Traffic's bad now (at drive times) on 41 between Evansville and Henderson, and it's only going to get worse.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on November 20, 2012, 05:16:42 PM
The problem here is that border that runs along the river. If there was one government that was concerned with the development of the whole region, there might be priority for the bridge. As it is, you've got one government in Indianapolis and another in Frankfort that see things differently. The folks in Indy in particular see connecting SW Indiana to Indy as the higher priority.

As someone who has driven US-41 between Evansville and Henderson, I see the need for the new bridge. I'm just trying to be realistic. I doubt that this bridge goes anywhere until the Louisville crossings are done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 20, 2012, 09:13:19 PM
The problem here is that border that runs along the river. If there was one government that was concerned with the development of the whole region, there might be priority for the bridge. As it is, you've got one government in Indianapolis and another in Frankfort that see things differently. The folks in Indy in particular see connecting SW Indiana to Indy as the higher priority.

As someone who has driven US-41 between Evansville and Henderson, I see the need for the new bridge. I'm just trying to be realistic. I doubt that this bridge goes anywhere until the Louisville crossings are done.

A replacement or companion for the Brent Spence Bridge (I-71 and I-75) at Cincinnati is a higher priority for Kentucky than a new I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 20, 2012, 09:33:19 PM
The problem here is that border that runs along the river. If there was one government that was concerned with the development of the whole region, there might be priority for the bridge. As it is, you've got one government in Indianapolis and another in Frankfort that see things differently. The folks in Indy in particular see connecting SW Indiana to Indy as the higher priority.

As someone who has driven US-41 between Evansville and Henderson, I see the need for the new bridge. I'm just trying to be realistic. I doubt that this bridge goes anywhere until the Louisville crossings are done.

The Evansville paper had an online poll yesterday and building it to Bloomington got 60% of the vote for top priority. The new bridge received only 9%. Other responses were should not have been built, US 41/I-70 was better, and l can't believe they built it. Anyway, the bridge will not be built anytime soon.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 20, 2012, 10:08:56 PM
Everyone up and down the river might as well hook up to the idea of paying tolls when they do finally get around to building the new bridges.  It's going to be the only way of getting anything done, unless someone has a better idea.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 21, 2012, 01:06:16 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 21, 2012, 05:50:44 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

You'd get no argument here on that ... I think the East End bridge will ease a lot of pain downtown.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2012, 07:53:09 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 21, 2012, 08:50:00 PM
I took a look at the 2012 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/program-Management/pages/2012-recommended-highway-plan.aspx) to see what's projected for I-69 from FY 2012 to FY 2018.
New Terrain: A baby step - 2012 Project Review to locate the I-69 alignment around Henderson from the Pennyrile Parkway to the Ohio River Crossing (page 54/136 of pdf; page 54 of document).
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg131151#msg131151) thread)

Since several years have passed since it was issued, I thought some might enjoy taking a look at the Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf). Here is a map of the Alternatives that were considered (page 13/23 of pdf; page S-13 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/h8WNT.jpg)

Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document):

Quote
In summary, Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and 3 each have their own unique impacts. However, Alternative 2 performs strongly in meeting the project purpose and need, requires fewer acres of right-of-way and farmland than the western alternatives, utilizes 18 miles of existing Interstate highway, requires the fewest residential and business relocations, has the fewest number of adverse historical impacts, and is the least costly alternative. Given this comprehensive evaluation of impacts, Alternative 2 is identified as the preferred alternative.

Does anyone know if KYTC has started the Project Review for the alignment around Henderson? - edit - I recently received an email reply to this question from KYTC (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836):

Quote
... The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 21, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

This person in Owensboro wants a new I-69 bridge ASAP.  The leaders here who want the I-67 pie-in-the-sky don't represent all of us.  Some of us actually think what we have is fine and aren't greedy for more, especially when there's a more pressing need just to the west of us.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 21, 2012, 10:55:27 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 21, 2012, 11:28:27 PM
I also do not live in that area, but my perspective is that the existing bridges, despite some deficiencies, are fine, but US 41 through Henderson is a huge problem. I thought upgrading US 41 in Henderson would be acceptable, but apparently KYTC thinks otherwise. They understand the situation far better than I do.

FWIW, it took me 30 minutes to go through Henderson last May. Unless that was unusual, that is a problem. I-69 will soon approach from the north and south so something needs to get done because it will get worse otherwise.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 21, 2012, 11:38:06 PM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.

I didn't realize the VPD count was that low on the Twin Bridges.  Feels like more when you're sitting in the middle of it, I guess! (LOL!)

It's NOT unusual for it to take a considerable amount of time to go through Henderson.  A minor fender-bender on the NB bridge or near Ellis Park or Waterworks Road can easily back things up past the KY-351 Zion exit for a long period of time, although I think that's more a (dys)function of accident cleanup than anything safety related.  Even when things are moving, though, at drive times (AM & PM), it's not unheard of for it to take 15 minutes or more to get through.

I think KYTC needs to do some studying of the road as it now stands and maybe make some minor changes, like retiming signals, limiting left turns to intersections only, combining access points, things like that.

But I'm not a traffic engineer ... I just call things as I see 'em.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 21, 2012, 11:48:35 PM
Unfortunately, it will take more than minor changes. That road will never be efficient. That is probably why they proposed the new bridge and route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 22, 2012, 12:09:35 AM
I have to agree ... but hopefully they can do some "band-aid" work to perhaps make what's there work a little better until that gets done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on November 22, 2012, 12:59:09 AM
I agree that the bridges can handle the current traffic loads, and even a little more, but there certainly needs to be some changes.

I think a much quicker and cost effective response would be to elevate US 41 through the so called Henderson strip. This 3 mile section would be an urban freeway, with frontage lanes immediately below the highway on each side. Two interchanges, one at Watson Lane and the other at Marywood Drive. Eliminate the cross at the Wolf Hills Road.

On the north side of the river, northbound exit into Ellis Park, southbound exit at Trocodero and follow existing road under the highway near the bridges and back into Ellis Park. Eliminate the cross at Waterworks Road.  That road really serves no purpose that can't be accomplished with Veterans Parkway, and it is a very dangerous intersection.

I think this can be done in the near future at a fraction of the cost of new highway and bridges, and accomplish what is needed for the immediate time. When funds are available down the road, a new bridge can be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 22, 2012, 01:58:34 AM
I agree that the bridges can handle the current traffic loads, and even a little more, but there certainly needs to be some changes.

I think a much quicker and cost effective response would be to elevate US 41 through the so called Henderson strip. This 3 mile section would be an urban freeway, with frontage lanes immediately below the highway on each side. Two interchanges, one at Watson Lane and the other at Marywood Drive. Eliminate the cross at the Wolf Hills Road.

On the north side of the river, northbound exit into Ellis Park, southbound exit at Trocodero and follow existing road under the highway near the bridges and back into Ellis Park. Eliminate the cross at Waterworks Road.  That road really serves no purpose that can't be accomplished with Veterans Parkway, and it is a very dangerous intersection.

I think this can be done in the near future at a fraction of the cost of new highway and bridges, and accomplish what is needed for the immediate time. When funds are available down the road, a new bridge can be built.

Good ideas, Cap'n.  I like your thinking.  I wonder what elevating 41 through there would cost.  I'm definitely in favor of your Ellis Park/Trocadero and Waterworks Road ideas.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on November 22, 2012, 09:12:10 AM
Yeah, it's definitely lower priority than the Louisville bridges (for both IN & KY), the I-75 bridge (for KY), and upgrading SR 37 to I-69 (for IN).

Once I-69 is complete in IN & KY except for the bridge, I think there will be more pressure to finish it, but you're not going to get a sizeable increase in traffic until I-69 reaches Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2012, 09:53:03 AM
The problem is that KY is pursuing new bridges in Lousiville and doesn't care for the I-69 bridge.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Kentucky does care about I-69; witness the signing of the "Future I-69 Corridor" designations on the parkways, and the work to bring the WK Parkway up to Interstate specs. It's just that the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence.

Although I will go to my grave saying that the second Louisville I-65 downtown bridge is not needed.

I said "I-69 bridge".  The REST of the route is what they're working on.

The people in Owensboro disagree about the bridge priorities.

I don't even think you even live in the area, and merely want to see blue lines drawn on a map to satisfy your self road interests.

The current US 41 bridges are adequate and structurally fine. They may not be ten lanes wide with full shoulders, but serve the area well and have done so for decades. This is not a high priority project because US 41, a four lane highway with minimal intrusions, is not a significant burden to through traffic, and it is also cost prohibitive.

There are other projects that were developed far earlier and are much further along the design-review-construction process. They include,
a) The Ohio River Bridges Project, which includes the new I-65 Downtown Bridge, the I-265 East End Bridge and Tunnel, and the reconstructed I-64/65/71 interchange. This is a $4 billion project that will be tolled due to its expense. There are two functional interstate crossings in Louisville, and the Sherman Minton carries 80,000 per day while the Kennedy Bridge 122,300 per day - or 106% of its original design capacity.
b) The Brent Spence Bridge Project, which includes a new I-75 bridge separate from the existing facility. It is projected to cost nearly $2 billion and there is no funding. It has not yet received authorization for tolling, although both governors of Kentucky and Ohio are supportive of open-road tolling measures. The Brent Spence Bridge carries over 158,000 per day.

The US 41 bridges carry a combined 37,178 per day, a 2010 estimate. That is nowhere near their total design capacity.

And US 41 is between Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky - not Owensboro.
I'm going by posters here - and Owensboro is nearby.  You're the only one that thinks US 41 is fine.

The other projects are further along because KY doesn't care two bits about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  At the rate they are going, it will never be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 22, 2012, 12:26:29 PM
The other projects are further along because KY doesn't care two bits about the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  At the rate they are going, it will never be built.

You're wrong again. Kentucky does care about the new bridge, and the I-69 corridor as a whole, but there are other priorities.

As for the existing US 41, the problem is not really with the bridges, although any work done on them can really put traffic in a stranglehold (I see the media advisories and the resulting discussions whenever there's an issue). The problem is the four-lane surface route along "The Strip," as they call it locally. Maybe doing RIROs along the strip and putting in a couple of U-turns would be a short-term fix. The lane adds/drops at the US 60 interchange are also a bit non-standard.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
They seem to be giving no indication of movement on the project, though.  Up here in NY that means a project is dead.  At the rate they're going, I-86 will be finished before this bridge, which is pretty impressive considering that I don't think it will be done until 2025-2030.

Or do things move faster in KY?  I'm used to major projects taking 10-20 years just to get an EIS done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 24, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.

As for Henderson, the US 60 strip is deficient in that it is not free flowing, but it was never designed to be a freeway. A right-in-right-out situation would make the road more efficient and would be cost effective. If this alignment is bypassed, then upgrading it further in-place would not be necessary.

Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2012, 11:40:43 PM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.

As for Henderson, the US 60 strip is deficient in that it is not free flowing, but it was never designed to be a freeway. A right-in-right-out situation would make the road more efficient and would be cost effective. If this alignment is bypassed, then upgrading it further in-place would not be necessary.

Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.) Because someone is in a different state, they don't know where Owensboro is? And how does that affect how much KY cares about I-69? Given that Indiana has concrete plans to finish 69, while KY is just getting around to studying the road that will lead to the yet-to-be-determined bridge (and no money for the bridge), that sure sounds like they don't care much to me. Just because you live there doesn't make you right.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on November 25, 2012, 03:11:04 AM

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.) Because someone is in a different state, they don't know where Owensboro is? And how does that affect how much KY cares about I-69? Given that Indiana has concrete plans to finish 69, while KY is just getting around to studying the road that will lead to the yet-to-be-determined bridge (and no money for the bridge), that sure sounds like they don't care much to me. Just because you live there doesn't make you right.

I have to agree with Steve and the others on Kentucky's seemingly lack of true interest on this highway. For example, it has been over a year since they announced the WK section was now I-69. In that time, they have added a few shields, but not a single BGS, nor a single sign along the I-24 segment, no updated mileage signs and no signage at the exit ramps. In the same time frame, a year ago, I-69 through most of Southern Indiana was still a dirt trail, today it is open.

I am not knocking on KY, but they have had the least to do of any state along the route and appear to be doing next to nothing. There is absolutely no reason at this point, that it should not be completely designated as 69 from the Audubon to the KY/TN state line.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 04:39:15 AM
Yep, there's no reason except FHWA's refusal to accept it into the Interstate system when it has some minor deficiencies that many other Interstates have.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 25, 2012, 08:54:48 AM
A lot of this is word games, but what HB said is really accurate.

Quote
...the Louisville and Northern KY/Cincy crossings are much more pressing needs. It's a matter of priorities; and for current traffic concerns, a new Evansville-to-Henderson crossing has to take a back seat to the routes already in existence

So the question is if it is a low priority for the state, do they really care about the I-69 bridge? Is it possible to care without devoting any meaningful resources or pushing the schedule out so far? To keep things in perspective, look how long it took Indiana to connect Evansville (the state's 3rd largest city) to Indianapolis. Until 2005, there was little commitment by Indiana other than the widening of US 41 to I-70 back in the 1970s or 1980s.

Everyone understands that the majority of Kentucky's population is in the eastern part of the state so few question the ordering of priorities. On the other hand, there is a significant bottleneck between Evansville and Henderson that will negatively impact growth in that part of the state. That cannot be ignored - something should be done.

Two questions about the I-69 bridge:
1) Not being an expert in funding mechanisms, I am confused about why they can't sell bonds because this relatively short section will surely be tolled anyway (the bridge and possibly the new Henderson bypass). I think this bridge project is owned by Kentucky with Indiana paying a share, but with tolls, how does that work?
2) Considering financial realities and assuming the current bridges are not near the end of their design life, could they revisit a way to use the existing bridges? I know there are state parks and flood plains to work around so it may not be possible. While any new routing would not be optimal, it would significantly improve the current situation.

Also, generally, how do two states decide who gets which bridge? For example, I know Indiana owns I-265 east side, Sherman Minton (I-64), and SR 237, but because the state line is on the northern bank of the Ohio River when Kentucky became a state, does Kentucky pay more than 50% and do they own more than half the Ohio River bridges? For the current US 41 bridges, they are completely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed over decades. What portion does Indiana have to pay?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 25, 2012, 10:29:21 AM
Ironically enough, in light of recent discussion regarding the location of Owensboro in relation to US 41, the November 25 Henderson Gleaner has an interview with Kevin Sheilley, the outgoing president and CEO of Northwest Kentucky Forward (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/nov/25/looking-into-future/) in which Sheilley raises the possibility that I-69 could be re-routed to Owensboro in order to take advantage of the existing bridge there:

Quote
"I'm very concerned that there could be an I-69 detour" for which Owensboro boosters "could say, 'We've already got a bridge.' (In theory, the state) could extend the improvements already taking place on Western Kentucky Parkway (for I-69) over to the Green River Parkway," then upgrade that north-south route to Owensboro and redesignate it as I-69 – and I-67 – rather than have I-69 follow the Pennyrile to Henderson, where a river crossing remains a costly obstacle.
"I know (Owensboro officials) say that's not their intention," Sheilley said. "But it may be on the minds of other people."

A lot of this is word games, but what HB said is really accurate.

The interview also reinforces mukade's observation, but it additionally lends credence to deanej's position that the Henderson-Evansville bridge project is currently "dead":

Quote
But completing the link by constructing an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville – an undertaking that a few years ago was projected to cost $600 million to $800 million – remains a seemingly insurmountable barrier, even if, as expected, it is operated as a toll bridge.
At the recent annual conference of the Kentucky Association for Economic Development – made up of "a group of people usually informed on stuff going on," according to Sheilley – he was discouraged to find attendees saying they thought the I-69 bridge project "was dead."
"As much as we, this region, has fought for I-69, it's still not on the radar screen" of Kentucky at large, Sheilley said. "It's still not getting the attention it needs to go forward.
"I don't sense any major player in Frankfort advocating on its behalf," he said.
"It's going to take a governor saying, 'It's a priority. We're going to find a way to get this done,' " Sheilley said. "With all respect to Gov. (Steve) Beshear, all the focus has been on Louisville," where two new bridges over the Ohio River are being developed.
"There's not a (state) transportation secretary, a speaker of the (Kentucky) House (of Representatives), a president of the Senate – not someone who has a bully pulpit saying, 'Not tomorrow, not next year – this has got to be at the top of the list,' " Sheilley said of I-69.

I wonder what Tom Tokarski and CARR would think of a Kentucky re-route now that the 67 miles of I-69 in Indiana are open to traffic?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 25, 2012, 11:35:01 AM
I-69 going to Owensboro is not going to work because:
- It would add 50 miles to I-69. For avoiding the hassle of 15-30 minutes in Henderson, you add 45 minutes of time plus more fuel used. No one would take that route. That was the same logic as the US 41/I-70 routing of I-69. The goal is not an Interstate shield for on a route for status - the Interstate shield needs to be on the best route.
- US 231 is not freeway in Indiana and north/east of Owensboro. It is a very good expressway, but there is no way Indiana at least would upgrade that route to freeway.
- This is the least important, but any move like that would once again screw up the exit numbers

So what would it take to create a Henderson bypass while using the existing bridges? That is the only other alternative. Heck, maybe they will have to demolish quite a few businesses - the US 31 projects in Indiana are taking dozens of businesses. Despite the cost, I bet it is a lot cheaper than a new bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on November 25, 2012, 11:37:45 AM
Interesting find, but that is one heck of a zig zag, and as mentioned, at least an additional 70 miles of interstate to route it back to Owensboro. Even if KY tried to push that, there is no way Indiana will go along, considering how close to the river they have it currently.

Who in their right mind, if southbound at 69-64-164, would then travel east to 231, down around Owensboro, follow the Natcher to the WK and back to the WK-Pennyrile? With 164-41-Pennyrile left in it's current state, it would still have to be at least an hour quicker.

I always found it strange how KY did the Pennyrile, leaving a few miles at each end to navigate grade level streets and bottlenecks. It took them approximately 5 years to build 70 miles between Hopkinsville and Henderson, another 40 years to build the additional 6 miles to connect to I-24, and we are still waiting on the 3-5 miles at the northend.

They spent millions to construct 70 miles, and leave the defficient bookends, when 80 miles or less would have done it completely from 164-24.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 25, 2012, 12:38:38 PM
There was always a plan to finish out the southern end of the Pennyrile to I-24, but I honestly don't know why it took them so long to do it. I'm not sure, but the Pennyrile may have been finished before I-24 was built, so there was nothing to tie it into.

There were never any plans to extend the Pennyrile beyond its current northern terminus.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: kharvey10 on November 25, 2012, 03:22:17 PM
Everyone up and down the river might as well hook up to the idea of paying tolls when they do finally get around to building the new bridges.  It's going to be the only way of getting anything done, unless someone has a better idea.  :hmmm:
That was the way the old timers did it for major bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2012, 04:07:09 PM
Since you are in New York - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you really have no clue as to where Owensboro is in relation to US 41. It's over 30 miles to the east, and that town is well served by US 231's crossing of the Ohio River - which is a non-freeway, and the parkways that feed into it.
Looks like I have a better idea of where Owensboro is than you do; I just measured it on Google Maps, and it's only 25 miles.  Compared to Louisville, it's practically on I-69's front door.  I would suspect that traffic moving from there to points west would indeed use US 41, since that route is mostly freeway.

Quote
Here is the six-year highway plan that expired FY 2012:

I-69; PERFORM A FINANCIAL PLANNING STUDY FOR NEW I-69 OHIO RIVER CROSSING AT HENDERSON/EVANSVILLE. 2007

And:

"The development of a new river crossing has been recently proposed as part of a federally sponsored environmental study for routing the proposed Interstate 69 corridor across the Ohio River near Henderson. The KYTC will work to initiate a financial plan to outline a strategy of innovative financing for project development that will allow for the ultimate advancement of this proposed corridor. Future I-69 development plans will involve the Pennyrile, Western and Purchase Parkways. To help maintain these critical parkway corridors, the KYTC will continue pavement rehabilitation activities to improve and upgrade pavement conditions on these routes. The Enacted FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Highway Plan contains $17 million for pavement rehabilitation activities for these routes."

Here is more from the current six-year highway plan:

PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012

So - as you've been proven wrong again by folks who live in the state and by folks who actually work for the Transportation Cabinet, yes, Kentucky does care about Interstate 69.
I've seen routes much further along the process than that get cancelled.  And unless KY does things a lot faster than NY, given the current planning stage, I'd say that bridge won't be built for another 20-70 years yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 05:43:06 PM
Put in a ferry from the end of the US 41 freeway to the end of I-164. Voila, no more intersections.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 25, 2012, 05:50:37 PM
Put in a ferry from the end of the US 41 freeway to the end of I-164. Voila, no more intersections.

Is there a budget to build canals (from I-164 to the Ohio and the Pennyrile Pkwy to the Ohio)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 25, 2012, 05:56:27 PM
There was always a plan to finish out the southern end of the Pennyrile to I-24, but I honestly don't know why it took them so long to do it. I'm not sure, but the Pennyrile may have been finished before I-24 was built, so there was nothing to tie it into.

There were never any plans to extend the Pennyrile beyond its current northern terminus.

Pennyrile Parkway was completed around Hopkinsville in 1968 to US 41A (Exit 7), and extended southward beginning in 2006, and judging from your photos, completed by 2011-2012. Interstate 24 was completed through the county in 1973-1974. There was probably not a need for a southern extension until recently due to US 41A's four-laning in 1957, and I'm still not settled it was needed decades later given that US 41A was fairly free flowing. But US 41A was widened early because Fort Campbell had evolved from a training camp for World War II into a permanent installation.

As for Shelley, special interest groups - which is what Northwest Kentucky Forward is, his comments are for self-interest. His job is on the line if he says otherwise. Of course the governor doesn't place Interstate 69's Ohio River crossing as a "high priority," given that it is a fairly new project and that other highway projects - the Ohio River Bridges Project and the Brent Spence Bridge Project, are of a much higher priority. It's also why there is no more Interstate 66 through southern Kentucky for the foreseeable future, and no talk of a toll road in northern Kentucky or Interstate 74 along the relatively new AA Highway.

With such a high cost - which will surely be over $1 billion by the time construction would actually start, there needs to be more than a commitment from the governor. There needs to be a financial plan which has not been developed. And with a free span just to the west that carries traffic just fine - there is going to be no justification for at least a decade for another span. The only way you are going to see a new bridge developed is if the 1932 northbound span for US 41 is needing replacement. The southbound span was built in 1965 and has quite a few more decades to go.

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.)

Cry me a river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 25, 2012, 10:32:40 PM
You should make a bumper sticker:

Henderson Demands to get 69 now
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on November 26, 2012, 04:51:49 PM
All of this because of a two (or however many it is) mile stretch of hotels, gas stations and fast food chains. I'm half surprised that Wal-Mart isn't on that road, it is nearby however.

Reading that article however about the "proposed" I-69 route through Owensboro, there is a mention that just the word "parkway" has negative conotations to it. Apparently, people think that parkways can only be windy roads with tree-line boulevards and whatnot and that putting interstate shields will make things much better in the Owensboro area. Is this really the opinion of most Kentuckians down there or is this just someone "hyping" the need for an interstate? I'm thinking it's the latter, but I just wanted to know.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2012, 05:11:44 PM

...
[/ quote]

Asshole much? Get off your high horse. (And before you argue with that statement, this is based on years of observation.)

Cry me a river.
Learn how to quote properly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 05:24:38 PM
To answer the question about the southern terminus of the Pennyrile Parkway, let's just say I have some inside information.  When the Pennyrile was first constructed in the late 60's, the plan was indeed to eventually extend it south to meet I-24.  The R/W was even purchased for that extension.  However, by the mid 1980's the decision was made not to extend the parkway to I-24 (presumably to save money) and that R/W was sold back to the property owners.

About 12 yrs ago, a new project came along to improve US 41A between the end of the Pennyrile to I-24.  In the course of that project, it was decided to bring back the Pennyrile Extension in order to minimize the improvements needed to US 41A.  The extension was redesigned and the R/W repurchased.  Growth in the south Hopkinsville area forced the realignment of part of the extension compared to its original alignment.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on November 26, 2012, 05:25:48 PM
All of this because of a two (or however many it is) mile stretch of hotels, gas stations and fast food chains. I'm half surprised that Wal-Mart isn't on that road, it is nearby however.

Reading that article however about the "proposed" I-69 route through Owensboro, there is a mention that just the word "parkway" has negative conotations to it. Apparently, people think that parkways can only be windy roads with tree-line boulevards and whatnot and that putting interstate shields will make things much better in the Owensboro area. Is this really the opinion of most Kentuckians down there or is this just someone "hyping" the need for an interstate? I'm thinking it's the latter, but I just wanted to know.

I think it was along the lines of US Rep Hal Rogers who believed that the term "parkway" was a deterrent to economic development. I have a 1999 Herald-Leader article with him quoted as specifically stating that in relation to the then-named Daniel Boone Parkway, which is two-lanes and connects London eastward towards the eastern part of the state. His belief was that by renaming it to Interstate 66 and expanding it to four-lanes, that the parkway designation would no longer be needed.

Jump forward a decade and Interstate 66 is all but dead, sans a half-finished northern bypass of Somerset that is part of the Cumberland Parkway and not Interstate 66. The state has all but dropped interest further eastward because of the very high cost of building a new road between the just-finished four-lane US 119 freeway and the under-construction US 460 freeway that would connect to the Coalfields Expressway in West Virginia which is not being built to interstate standards. That and the Daniel Boone Parkway was renamed after Hal Rogers himself, even though he had nothing to do with the roadway's construction - the Hal Rogers Parkway. How about that!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 06:10:39 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

And I have always wondered why the parallel US routes (US 62, US 41, US 231, etc) were not moved the parkways once the tolls were paid off. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 06:43:51 PM
However, by the mid 1980's the decision was made not to extend the parkway to I-24 (presumably to save money) and that R/W was sold back to the property owners.

Probably by John Y. Brown., whom I consider to be the second-worst governor in my memory. (Brereton Jones was the worst.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

That decision was made in the early 1960s when the Mountain Parkway became Kentucky's second toll road. The state already had a Kentucky Turnpike; I don't know why they didn't call them "turnpikes" instead of "parkways" and my guess is anyone who would know is long-dead.

There are still a few old-timers around Shepherdsville who refer to I-65 as "The Turnpike."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 26, 2012, 07:05:10 PM
Why doesn't Kentucky quit calling these roadways "Parkways", and call them "Freeways" instead?  That might help their marketing issue short of redesignating all of them as interstates.  In most states, the term "Parkway" implies no large trucks.

And I have always wondered why the parallel US routes (US 62, US 41, US 231, etc) were not moved the parkways once the tolls were paid off. 

Those are good questions, of course.

So as someone from that metro area who is a highway designer, Roadwarrior, how do you see the bridge issue being resolved given financial constraints? Is there any realistic alternative other than the expesive new bridge that may not be built for decades?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on November 26, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
My personal opinion is that in the long run the bridge will need to be built and probably will be built at some point.  From what I have been told, INDOT already has their share of the money for it (held back from Major Moves), although that information is second-hand and could be wrong.  Kentucky is who has the big money issues, and their share would be the majority for this section of roadway and bridge.

Once I-69 connects to Indianapolis from Evansville, or at least gets to Martinsville, and once most or all of the designated Parkways in Kentucky have been upgraded to I-69 and signed in the field, the pressure would start to build to fill in the gap with the new bridge and connecting roadway.  My guestimate is that could take another 10 years or so from now.  Also, by then increased congestion/poorer condition of the exisiting bridges would make a parallel toll bridge more attractive for motorists. 

In other words, until I-69 has enough continuous segments opened on both sides of the bridge, I don't see the need for that bridge to be constructed within the next 10 years.  However, I do hope KYTC is able to protect the corridor for the preferred alternative that was identified in the incomplete EIS.  Because I think at that point, Indiana and Kentucky will get serious about buiding that bridge.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 26, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 10:43:33 PM
However, I do hope KYTC is able to protect the corridor for the preferred alternative that was identified in the incomplete EIS.  Because I think at that point, Indiana and Kentucky will get serious about buiding that bridge.   

Generally, Kentucky tells people to do what they want with their property and to give no thought to whether or not a road will be built through the area. This is currently an issue -- well, "issue" may be too strong of a word -- as design work gets underway on some improvements to the easternmost mileage of the Mountain Parkway. Some of the properties that would be needed for the project were the sites of homes that were destroyed by the Magoffin County tornado this past spring. Property owners have been asking whether they should build back and are being told to do what they wish without any consideration as to whether or not that property will be needed for the road.

I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.

I hate the term "Breezewood" being used for this situation, or for situations where freeways have no direct connections and you have to use surface roads. Breezewood is a unique anomaly where the permanent setup is you have to use a small portion of a surface route to stay on the expressway. This will be more like it was back in the days when the interstates were being constructed and you had to, for example, exit I-64 eastbound at Frankfort and take US 60 or US 421 to Lexington to rejoin the interstate.

But this won't be the only situation. There will be several instances in Tennessee. South Fulton (not a full freeway interchange at the Purchase Parkway, US 51 and US 45/45E/45W) and the portion south of Dyersburg will be in existence for a long time to come before an Interstate is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 27, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.

I hate the term "Breezewood" being used for this situation, or for situations where freeways have no direct connections and you have to use surface roads. Breezewood is a unique anomaly where the permanent setup is you have to use a small portion of a surface route to stay on the expressway. This will be more like it was back in the days when the interstates were being constructed and you had to, for example, exit I-64 eastbound at Frankfort and take US 60 or US 421 to Lexington to rejoin the interstate.

But this won't be the only situation. There will be several instances in Tennessee. South Fulton (not a full freeway interchange at the Purchase Parkway, US 51 and US 45/45E/45W) and the portion south of Dyersburg will be in existence for a long time to come before an Interstate is built.

The term Breezewood is well understood, and while this is not identical, the effect is similar.

From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 10:59:13 PM
From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.

Wouldn't the logical route then be to cross the river on US 231 and take the Natcher Parkway to Bowling Green?

I've decided that if I ever need to go to the Memphis area or points south or west, I'm taking the Kentucky parkways to US 51 to I-155. Bypasses Nashville and the miles and hours of boring rough pavement suckiness that is I-40 west of Music City, plus much less traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on November 27, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.

Wouldn't the logical route then be to cross the river on US 231 and take the Natcher Parkway to Bowling Green?

Realizing that SR 37 is a pain thru Indy, Martinsville, and Bloomington, a good chunk of that needs to be upgraded. Then I would say when Owensboro has a better bypass. It is better than Henderson, but is still a pain going through there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 11:39:52 PM
Realizing that SR 37 is a pain thru Indy, Martinsville, and Bloomington, a good chunk of that needs to be upgraded. Then I would say when Owensboro has a better bypass. It is better than Henderson, but is still a pain going through there.

There is currently a project under construction that will bypass that older four-lane stretch of US 60 that took on US 231 when the new bridge was built. It ties in to US 60 about where the 1990s-vintage construction ended, and then will tie into the Wendell Ford Bypass near the KY 54 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 28, 2012, 03:47:48 AM
Realizing that SR 37 is a pain thru Indy, Martinsville, and Bloomington, a good chunk of that needs to be upgraded. Then I would say when Owensboro has a better bypass. It is better than Henderson, but is still a pain going through there.

There is currently a project under construction that will bypass that older four-lane stretch of US 60 that took on US 231 when the new bridge was built. It ties in to US 60 about where the 1990s-vintage construction ended, and then will tie into the Wendell Ford Bypass near the KY 54 interchange.

And that stretch looks like it will be done by the end of next year, maybe early '14.  (Crosses fingers!)  I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I read somewhere that they want it open between KY 54 and Pleasant Valley/KY 603 before the new Owensboro Health Regional Hospital opens in the summer.  It's located right off the new extension between Pleasant Valley and Daniels Lane.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 14, 2012, 02:38:40 PM
This article (http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/55-local-hopkins-top-news/23934-legislators-address-vital-community-projects-at-chamber-breakfast) reports on Kevin McLaren of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet addressing the Kentucky portion of the I-69 project at the Madisonville-Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce 2013 Legislative Priorities breakfast on December 13, in which event literature described the Ohio River bridge as being "key": 

Quote
The Madisonville­Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce, as a member of Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, or C-LINK, a group of 12 chambers of commerce representing communities in 10 Northwest Kentucky counties, encourages our state and federal legislators to continue to pursue completion of Kentucky's portion of Interstate 69. Key to the I-69 project will be the building of a new bridge spanning the Ohio River between Henderson County and Vanderburgh County in Indiana and construction of a 10-mile stretch of connector highway around Henderson between the bridge and the Pennyrile Parkway.

However, Chamber member businesses prioritized eight local projects, and I-69 (including the Ohio River bridge) only ranked as the fourth highest priority.  The twin bridges must be a doing a good job at the present time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on December 16, 2012, 01:35:58 PM
I agree, generally, but I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon, but I am not holding my breath. This may be a longterm Breezewood-like situation.

I hate the term "Breezewood" being used for this situation, or for situations where freeways have no direct connections and you have to use surface roads. Breezewood is a unique anomaly where the permanent setup is you have to use a small portion of a surface route to stay on the expressway. This will be more like it was back in the days when the interstates were being constructed and you had to, for example, exit I-64 eastbound at Frankfort and take US 60 or US 421 to Lexington to rejoin the interstate.

But this won't be the only situation. There will be several instances in Tennessee. South Fulton (not a full freeway interchange at the Purchase Parkway, US 51 and US 45/45E/45W) and the portion south of Dyersburg will be in existence for a long time to come before an Interstate is built.

The term Breezewood is well understood, and while this is not identical, the effect is similar.

From a pure I-69 perspective, you are right, but I suspect as many people would use I-69 as an alternative to I-65. I doubt I would ever take I-69 to Memphis, but I likely would use it to go to Nashville or points south.

I agree that a large % of people in SW Indiana will reroute to using I-69 to I-164 to US 41 to Pennyrile to I-24 to head to Nashville and points further south (Atlanta, Alabama, vacationing along the FL Gulf Coast) instead of cutting over to I-65, but that's not very much thru traffic being added in the grand scheme of things.  The main driver is going to be either the existing bridges falling apart or population growth in the Evansville metro area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on December 20, 2012, 10:59:49 AM
the November 25 Henderson Gleaner has an interview with Kevin Sheilley, the outgoing president and CEO of Northwest Kentucky Forward (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/nov/25/looking-into-future/):
Quote
"As much as we, this region, has fought for I-69, it's still not on the radar screen" of Kentucky at large, Sheilley said. "It's still not getting the attention it needs to go forward.
"I don't sense any major player in Frankfort advocating on its behalf," he said.
"It's going to take a governor saying, 'It's a priority. We're going to find a way to get this done,' " Sheilley said. "With all respect to Gov. (Steve) Beshear, all the focus has been on Louisville," where two new bridges over the Ohio River are being developed.

In this TV video report (http://tristatehomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=570802), which is primarily about the groundbreaking for the KY 109 interchange upgrade, Gov. Beshear remarks that I-69 is about "jobs, jobs, jobs ... jobs in Kentucky ... jobs in Indiana" and that they will "eventually" have to build the bridges from Indiana to Henderson.  Although he does not tout the Ohio River bridge(s) as a "priority", he at least indicates that the project is on his political "radar screen" in terms of a long-term need.  Of course, he will be able to kick the can down the road to future governors.

The video report also has some footage of the current KY 109 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 20, 2013, 10:57:55 AM
This article (http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/55-local-hopkins-top-news/23934-legislators-address-vital-community-projects-at-chamber-breakfast) reports on Kevin McLaren of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet addressing the Kentucky portion of the I-69 project at the Madisonville-Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce 2013 Legislative Priorities breakfast on December 13, in which event literature described the Ohio River bridge as being "key": 
Quote
The Madisonville­Hopkins County Chamber of Commerce, as a member of Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, or C-LINK, a group of 12 chambers of commerce representing communities in 10 Northwest Kentucky counties, encourages our state and federal legislators to continue to pursue completion of Kentucky's portion of Interstate 69. Key to the I-69 project will be the building of a new bridge spanning the Ohio River between Henderson County and Vanderburgh County in Indiana and construction of a 10-mile stretch of connector highway around Henderson between the bridge and the Pennyrile Parkway.
However, Chamber member businesses prioritized eight local projects, and I-69 (including the Ohio River bridge) only ranked as the fourth highest priority.  The twin bridges must be a doing a good job at the present time.
I would say once I-69 is through Bloomington and the Pennyrile Pkwy. becomes I-69, that pressure will be on. That could be more like five years. Assuming a minimum lead time of five years to get everything lined up, they had better get going soon

The Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce has identified its legislative priorities for 2013 (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jan/19/henderson-chamber-sets-2013-priorities/). The number one federal initiative is to encourage various federal entities to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and to accelerate funding for a new Interstate 69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
The chamber strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and to accelerate funding for a new Interstate 69 Ohio River bridge. The chamber further supports the efforts of CLINK and Hoosier Voices for I-69 in advocating for the advancement of the studies necessary to obtain federal and state funding to swiftly construct this vital new bridge.
The chamber will continue to work diligently with C-LINK, Hoosier Voices, the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana and state governmental agencies to encourage the utilization of alternative funding mechanisms such as tolling or to expedite this essential construction project.

In the short term, obtaining the designation as a Project of National and Regional Significance, if done quickly, could provide access to part of a $500 million pot of money authorized by MAP-21 in FY2013 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm) that could be applied to initial engineering studies, etc.:

Quote
Projects of National and Regional Significance [1120]
MAP-21 authorizes $500 million from the General Fund (subject to appropriation) in FY 2013 only, to fund critical high-cost surface transportation capital projects that will accomplish national goals, such as generating national/regional economic benefits and improving safety, and that are difficult to complete with existing Federal, State, local, and private funds. States, tribes, transit agencies, and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups of these entities are eligible to apply for competitive grant funding.

However, I get the sense that Kentucky and Indiana have yet to put together an organized "multi-State" effort regarding the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 15, 2013, 11:54:47 AM
David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/)
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done .... Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.  Although the article does not discuss a bi-state commission, Gillenwater is presented as having survived the Bloomington I-69 wars and that she is making the I-69 Ohio River bridge a priority:

Quote
Pushing for construction of an Interstate 69 bridge can unite business interests on both sides of the Ohio River, the new president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana said Thursday.
“Yes, we’re Hoosiers, and we’re Wildcats, (but) these bridges connect us,”  Christy Gillenwater, who took the helm of the Evansville chamber in December, declared at a Henderson Chamber of Commerce breakfast ....
Securing necessary funding from Kentucky and Indiana – even with the likelihood that tolls would be collected on the bridge – is proving a challenge, particularly with Kentucky already working with Indiana to construct two new interstate bridges across the Ohio River at Louisville and while Northern Kentucky is lobbying for a new I-75 bridge to Cincinnati.
But Gillenwater noted that groups on both sides of the river – Hoosier Voices for I-69 and the Chamber Leadership Initiative of Northwest Kentucky (C-LINK) – continue to jointly advocate for the bridge here.
“We need to come to your aid and partner with you and move forward collectively,”  she said.
Gillenwater isn’t new to facing obstacles to I-69. Before coming to Evansville, she had been president and CEO since 2005 of the Greater Bloomington (Ind.) Chamber of Commerce. There was organized opposition to construction of the interstate there for reasons ranging from environmental issues to concerns that an interstate would harm Bloomington’s small-town atmosphere ....

It will be interesting to see if she tries to encourage the creation of a bi-state commission.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on February 15, 2013, 12:09:02 PM
It'll take a lot of earmarked federal money at this point to get it off the backburner.

Governor Pence has said his 3 highway construction priorities for the next four years (http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=135&ArticleID=68521) are I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend, and the Louisville bridges project.  It does seem like Indiana is going to put a good portion of their budget surplus back into transportation funding but local communities want a lot of that money for maintenance/repair/upgrading of local roads.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2013, 02:23:20 PM
"The total cost of the bridge and 13-mile section near Henderson is estimated at $1 billion
According to article in today's Evansville Courier Press, the cost estimate for the bridge plus the new roadway to tie into the Pennyrile Parkway has risen to $1.4 billion:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/
Surprisingly, this March 6, 2012 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/06/i-69-improvements-begin-on-western-ky-parkway/) provides a cost estimate for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and the new roadway to connect to the Pennyrile that is significantly less than the above two estimates:
Quote
The most challenging link for I-69 in western Kentucky will be constructing a new bridge across the Ohio River east of Henderson and constructing new roadway to connect the bridge with the Pennyrile south of town. The project has been projected to cost $600 million to $800 million, a funding challenge that Kentucky and Indiana officials haven't resolved.
I suppose it is possible that the $600 million to $800 million estimate is for the bridge alone, although the wording in the article seems to indicate otherwise.
Does anyone know if KYTC has started the Project Review for the alignment around Henderson? - edit - I recently received an email reply to this question from KYTC (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836):
Quote
... The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.

This article (http://wkyufm.org/post/bill-would-allow-public-private-partnerships-big-construction-projects-kentucky) reports that a bill has been filed that would allow KYTC to explore having public-private partnerships use tolls as a funding component for projects over $500 million:

Quote
State Rep. Sannie Overly has filed a bill that will allow the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to explore public-private partnerships to help construction projects with big price tags .... "This bill is not designed for any one particular project, it is really nothing more than an additional tool in the toolbox of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet," she said.
In public-private partnerships, companies contribute to the construction costs in exchange for access to revenue sources, such as tolls. Under Overly's bill, the public-private option would be available only to so-called mega-projects, which is any project which costs more than $500 million.

The projected cost for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge is greater than $500 million.



This Op-Ed Commentary (http://www.kentucky.com/2013/02/25/2530830/i-69-in-western-kentucky-will.html) is signed by nine Kentucky state senators and 21 Kentucky state representatives from western Kentucky.  In the Op-Ed, they appear to argue that the rest of the state should allow tolls to be used as part of the financing system for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, which also appears to be a plea to enact the above-referenced bill regarding public-private partnerships:

Quote
As legislators who have been involved in the I-69 corridor project for a number of years, we were very disappointed to read the article diminishing the importance of Interstate 69 in Kentucky .... The reporters fail to note, however, that completion of the new I-69 bridge between Henderson and Evansville will, in fact, help the current system, too.
There are now two bridges at that location, one carrying northbound and one carrying southbound traffic. The first was built in 1932 and the second in 1966. The bridges are gridlocked at rush hours, operating at the lowest level of efficiency.
The anticipated increase in traffic flow along the upgraded I-69 corridor will dramatically alleviate the pressure on the current system. This isn't a frivolous choice, but one that is necessary to keep the Kentucky economy moving forward.

The reporters' intent was to take a critical view of infrastructure building, but they merely highlighted a much bigger concern that many of us have about our road infrastructure. The reason that funding for the I-69 bridge project has not been identified is that Kentucky and Indiana have been working through a backlog of necessary projects.
The federal gas tax has not changed since 1993 and has 35 percent less purchasing power today. With the costs to build far outpacing the revenues raised, it is no wonder that projects always take several years to build and that states must be creative in finding funding for their projects.
The citizens of Western Kentucky stepped up to build the former parkway system with tolls, allowing federal and state gas taxes to be used on roads elsewhere in the state. It is time the rest of the state recognized the needs of Western Kentucky as well.

Maybe a public-private partnership will be put in place in time for dirt to be turned on the Henderson approach in 2019.

As an aside, didn't they mean to write "increase" instead of "alleviate" in regard to pressure on the current system?  :hmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 28, 2013, 10:18:14 PM
David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/)
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.  Although the article does not discuss a bi-state commission, Gillenwater is presented as having survived the Bloomington I-69 wars and that she is making the I-69 Ohio River bridge a priority

When making the above post, I had overlooked a February 7 Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana Op-Ed (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/07/2013-legislative-priorities/) in which creation of a Bi-State Authority is the Chamber's top public policy initiative for 2013:

Quote
As our top public policy priority, The Chamber supports Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK in encouraging the formation of a Bi-State Authority that would advance the studies necessary to gain federal funding to construct a new I-69 bridge connecting Evansville to Henderson, Ky.

At least it seems like Gillenwater and the Chamber are doing the preliminary groundwork to figure out how to finance the project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 24, 2013, 10:34:11 AM
A Henderson Gleaner editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/24/coal-baron-with-mines-here-a-top-bluegrass-poll/) looks to the Louisville Ohio River bridges project to formulate a guesstimate of what the tolls might be on the I-69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
We’re no closer to knowing when or if Kentucky will be able to undertake the estimated $1.4 billion construction of an Interstate 69 bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville.
That’s largely because the state is already engaged in the $2.6-billion project to build two new Ohio River interstate bridges at Louisville (while the pressure continues for a new I-75 bridge between northern Kentucky and Cincinnati).
But the Louisville project might shed light on how much vehicles would have to pay in tolls to help pay for a new bridge here.
A consultant for the Louisville bridges last week said tolls there would likely be $1 for a car or light truck with a “frequent user”  transponder; $2 for other two-axle vehicles; $5 for medium-sized trucks; and $10 for heavy trucks.

Those assumed rates were presented to the Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, which will be selling toll revenue bonds to help finance the new bridge in downtown Louisville for northbound I-65 traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 27, 2013, 01:20:19 PM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/may/10/evansville-mayor-wants-to-see-more-cooperation/) to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:
Quote
New Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke .... concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville."

In this TV video report (http://www.14news.com/story/21801509/mayor-winnecke-delivers-his-second-state-of-the-city-address), Mayor Winnecke continues to stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
" I-69 is more than just a route between Evansville and Indianapolis. It's really a route to the south, too. So until a bridge over the Ohio River designated for Interstate 69 is built, I-69 will be an incomplete project," Mayor Winnecke said. "Mayor Austin and I have committed to each other and to our communities that we will be advocates to renew the discussion on building a new bridge over the Ohio River."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 01, 2013, 08:30:19 AM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.  Although the article does not discuss a bi-state commission, Gillenwater is presented as having survived the Bloomington I-69 wars and that she is making the I-69 Ohio River bridge a priority

In a Letter From the Chamber President (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/01/no-headline---ebj_chamberpresletter/), Gillenwater makes some interesting comparisons to other Ohio River crossings:

Quote
Traffic counts on the U.S. 41 bridges are currently third of the 10 bridges crossing the Ohio River connecting Indiana with Kentucky. With the impending completion of I-69 in the two states, daily traffic will undoubtedly increase.
The Southwest Indiana regional business community was recently identified as one of the highest volume urban shipping hubs in the nation, thanks to diversified intermodal transportation links. Yet, the U.S. 41 bridges serve, without redundancy, one corridor. In comparison, the Louisville MSA will soon have four Ohio River bridges; the Owensboro/Paducah MSA is serviced by two bridges; and the Cincinnati MSA has seven Ohio River bridges. The Southwest Indiana/Henderson MSA is the largest MSA in the region with a single highway river crossing.

She also writes about vulnerability to an earthquake and the stress of increased traffic on aging infrastructure:

Quote
... our U.S. 41 bridges do not meet current earthquake standards, and as traffic increases in the coming years, we can only expect that more bottlenecking will occur on the highway. Challenged with at-grade intersections, stoplights, driveways and many traffic intersections, the critical 8-mile segment most certainly creates looming transportation hazards for the region. Although the U.S. 41 bridges are accepted as sturdy and durable today, the infrastructure is quickly aging and will be disproportionately strained by the increased I-69 traffic.

Finally, she intends to cooperate in identifying a funding mechanism for the I-69 Ohio River bridge:

Quote
The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana supports the efforts of Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky (C-LINK) as they encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to act creatively in formulating a plan to fund the completion of a new I-69 bridge. And, as funding becomes increasingly limited at both the state and federal levels, The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana will continue to work closely with Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK to identify and encourage the use of alternative funding mechanisms, such as tolling and public-private partnerships, to expedite the construction of the much-needed I-69 bridge.

edit


In this Inside Indiana Business interview (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/video.asp?v=2263834511001&tags=03%2D31%2D2013), Gillenwater speaks about how long it takes to put a bridge project together and that "of course, it's Kentucky's bridge".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 19, 2013, 08:14:08 AM
A Henderson Gleaner editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/24/coal-baron-with-mines-here-a-top-bluegrass-poll/) looks to the Louisville Ohio River bridges project to formulate a guesstimate of what the tolls might be on the I-69 Ohio River bridge:
Quote
the Louisville project might shed light on how much vehicles would have to pay in tolls to help pay for a new bridge here.
A consultant for the Louisville bridges last week said tolls there would likely be $1 for a car or light truck with a “frequent user”  transponder; $2 for other two-axle vehicles; $5 for medium-sized trucks; and $10 for heavy trucks.
In this Inside Indiana Business interview (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/video.asp?v=2263834511001&tags=03%2D31%2D2013), Gillenwater speaks about how long it takes to put a bridge project together and that "of course, it's Kentucky's bridge".

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/no-headline---interstate_69_update/) reports that Gary Valentine, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s new project manager for Interstate 69, warned the Henderson Chamber of Commerce that tolls would probably be necessary to fund construction of the bridge, and he also used the Louisville example for a possible toll structure:

Quote
The latest cost estimate, which dates from 2008, is $1.4 billion for the Ohio River crossing and its related highway approaches. “Right now, it’s not an affordable project for us.
“To be honest, $1.4 billion is very challenging in these times,”  said Valentine, adding that the gas tax doesn’t cover costs like it once did.
Kentucky’s six-year road plan, which guides all state highway construction, provides $1 million to study ways to make the bridge more affordable and Valentine said he thinks costs can be shaved, but a toll might be necessary ....
Valentine gave some ball-park estimates on what kind of toll prices motorists could expect on a new bridge, based on what is being proposed for the new bridges at Louisville. The rates being looked at there are $1 for a frequent user.
“In preliminary studies we defined a frequent user as someone who used the bridge 20 times a month in both directions.”  Non-frequent users would pay $2, while the price would be $5 for “box-type trucks and commercial-type trucks”  and $10 for tractor-trailer rigs.



Does anyone know if KYTC has started the Project Review for the alignment around Henderson? - edit - I recently received an email reply to this question from KYTC (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836):
Quote
... The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.

Valentine also spoke about trying to shave costs by shortening the new terrain Henderson approach to the bridge:

Quote
Kentucky’s six-year road plan, which guides all state highway construction, provides $1 million to study ways to make the bridge more affordable and Valentine said he thinks costs can be shaved, but a toll might be necessary.
The preferred corridor branches off from the Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson “what I consider way early,”  which will require the construction of about nine miles of new highway at a cost of about $10 million a mile. He said highway officials will look at branching off closer to Henderson.

edit

A more recent version of the above-quoted article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/i-69-prospects-look-good-8212-except-for-the/) has Valentine providing more of an explanation of why he would consider altering the route of the Henderson new terrain approach:

Quote
Having two controlled access highways paralleling one another in that stretch doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, he said, so highway officials will be looking at branching off closer to Henderson.
Title: Standalone Traffic and Toll Forecast For I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2013, 12:28:52 AM
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (pp. 26-27, 45 of pdf; pp. 21-22, 40 of document):

Quote
... a separate standalone forecast was developed for SIU 4, which includes a bridge across the Ohio River. The standalone forecast is based on the assumption that the remaining segments of I‐69 are open to traffic. The limits of this standalone project include only the new alignment component of SIU 4, which includes 1.4 and 7.8 miles of roadway approach in Indiana and Kentucky, respectively, and the 4‐mile bridge. Although the bridge is entirely within the state of Kentucky, per preliminary discussions between Kentucky and Indiana, Kentucky will assume 2/3 of the bridge cost, and Indiana will assume the remaining 1/3. Based on these discussions, toll revenue was also divided between the states following this methodology.
Below are the major assumptions for the tolled traffic and toll revenue forecasts:
1. Opening year is 2025
2. Assumes all ETC (transponder and video) and all vehicles pay a toll
3. Toll gantries are located approximately every 20 miles
4. Toll rate:
o Analysis assumed a 2011 per mile toll rate of $0.15 per mile for passenger cars, which equates to $0.227 per mile in 2025 dollars (assuming 3 percent annual inflation). The analysis assumed that the toll rate will be consistent along the entire corridor and that trucks with more than two axles will be tolled at the (N‐1) axles × passenger car rate.
o Analysis assumed a bridge toll rate of $2.50 per trip in 2012 dollars
5. Toll rate escalation is 3.0 percent annually
....
a separate analysis was conducted for SIU 4 as a standalone project. Consistent with a similar study conducted in 2008, the scope of the standalone scenario included only the new bridge and approach portion of SIU 4. Therefore, the existing roadway in Indiana that will likely require minimal upgrades was not included in the scope of the standalone scenario. The results of the SIU 4 standalone scenario are presented in Table 16. The results for the SIU 4 corridor scenario are provided in Table 16 for comparative purposes.
As noted in Table 16, the feasibility ratios decrease significantly for Indiana in the standalone scenario relative to the corridor scenario. The primary reason for this reduction is that there is a significant drop in revenues with the removal of the existing segment in Indiana under the standalone scenario and only a minimal cost reduction. As previously stated, the cost to upgrade the existing segment is anticipated to be minimal. The cost reduction occurs due to the exclusion of a toll gantry that is included on the existing section under the corridor scenario.
The Kentucky feasibility ratio remains consistent across the two scenarios although there is a slight increase in the 2012 project cost. The similar ratios occur because the project scope for the Kentucky portion of SIU 4 is essentially the same under both the corridor and standalone scenarios. The slight increase in cost under the standalone scenario occurs because the host system costs, while less overall for the standalone scenario than the corridor scenario, are shared by two rather than seven states.

(http://i.imgur.com/NBDcZUA.jpg)

A Table of a Summary of Sufficiency of Toll Revenues to Fund Life Cycle Costs for the I-69 states that may toll can be found in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217848#msg217848).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on May 13, 2013, 08:44:23 AM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: JMoses24 on May 13, 2013, 09:06:55 AM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.

Not trying to be contentious, but... "Who cares"? Really?

Here's the thing... yes, if you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. But not having wide enough shoulders means safety hazards when there is a breakdown. One only needs to look upriver, at the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati, to see what can happen when there are no shoulders and a breakdown occurs:

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120103/NEWS/301030161/Brent-Spence-bridge-victim-alive-when-he-hit-water?odyssey=mod%7Cmostview
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 13, 2013, 02:27:16 PM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.

Not if is an Interstate-grade bridge that would increase capacity and is part of a national, if not international corridor...which the existing US 41 bridge most certainly ISN'T.

I guess you would have urged the people in the Tampa Bay area to simply rebuild the old Sunshine Skyway bridge the same way after it was hit and collapsed??
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ShawnP on May 13, 2013, 03:34:41 PM
A new bridge is badly needed as US-41 backs up now and with more I-69 traffic it will really back up.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on May 14, 2013, 08:02:05 AM
Kentucky already said it was not affordable. It is last on their priorities. They are actualy considering making a small bypas around Henderson and using the US 41 bridges. KY simply doesn't have the 2 billion dollars to build it and they have have greater priorities then building a bridge that already exists on US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on May 28, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
Congressmen: I-69 bridge will require 'creative' funding (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/may/28/no-headline---i-69/)

Quote
EVANSVILLE – Leaders from both Indiana and Kentucky say they’ll have to get creative to find money for the planned I-69 bridge that would link the two states.

A group of elected officials and I-69 proponents met Tuesday at the Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana for an initial talk about how to come up with the estimated $1.2 billion the bridge will require.

I-69 is open in segments, with others yet to be built. In the big picture, the interstate is envisioned as one that would run across the United States from Canada to Mexico. The planned I-69 bridge under discussion Tuesday would span the Ohio River between Evansville and Henderson, Ky.

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican who represents Kentucky’s First Congressional District, said funding is tight at all levels of government, from local to state and federal.

“We recognize that there is simply not enough money there to meet all our infrastructure needs, so we are exploring other options,”  Whitfield said.

U.S. Rep. Larry Bucshon, a Republican who represents Indiana’s Eighth Congressional District, agreed.

“We all know that government dollars are tight,”  Bucshon said.

One possible idea, Bucshon said, is a public/private partnership that would involve private investors putting up some of the money for the project. Making the bridge a toll bridge is another possibility, Bucshon said.

Bucshon characterized Tuesday’s meeting as “a preliminary discussion”  only, and neither he nor Whitfield could say how much of the total cost might come from private funding.

Whitfield also noted that, while Indiana’s state laws allow public/private partnerships for such projects, Kentucky’s currently do not.

Others involved in the meeting included Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke, Henderson Mayor Steve Austin and numerous others.

Winnecke said the I-69 bridge is essential if the highway is to fulfill its economic development potential for this region.

“Without it, Evansville simply becomes a cul-de-sac for southbound traffic,”  Winnecke said.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on May 29, 2013, 05:50:40 PM
Quote
“Without it, Evansville simply becomes a cul-de-sac for southbound traffic,”  Winnecke said.

 :clap:
Great line from Evansville's mayor.

If they can get some creative funding going and start this project, pressure will build on Tennessee's pols to get their portion moving, to finish the road from Indy to Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 09, 2013, 10:58:37 PM
David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, (http://www.courierpress.com/staff/david-dixon/) seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/). He also injects a sense of urgency to do so because of perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:
Quote
We're not talking about moving dirt or even making drawings, but creating the bi-state commission that needs to be set up before anything else can happen. Let's get it done .... There's another reason to act now.
With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.

Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough. Working in our favor is what seems to be a realization down here that in this day and age it's not going to happen without putting tolls on the bridge ....

Dixon continues his call for a sense of urgency in a June 9 editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jun/09/just-wonderingprotests-bridgesand-a-special/):

Quote
When, if ever, will we see some kind of real action, even preliminary, on getting a new Interstate 69 bridge built between Henderson and Evansville?
A big powwow was held in Evansville last month with politicians and business leaders from both states in attendance. One characterized the meeting as “a preliminary discussion.”  Seems like we’ve had quite a few of those already.
The federal government’s not going to build a bridge by itself. State money is just as tight. Public/private partnerships that have raised funds for highway projects in Indiana are not allowed by current Kentucky law.
The idea of putting tolls on a new bridge was brought up as a possibility at the recent meeting. Tolls are more than a possibility. They’re a necessity.
The planning should commence with building a toll bridge as a given.
We paid tolls on Kentucky parkways for years and everybody got around OK. I never knew of anybody skipping their Destin vacation because they had to pony up at the toll booth on the Pennyrile. Or missing a meal at the Moonlight in Owensboro because of tolls on the Audubon.
It’s going to take some kind of combination of tolls, federal, state and maybe private money to get a bridge built and open up northwest Kentucky (and southwest Indiana) to the economic growth that an interstate highway would bring ....
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac”  in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 11, 2013, 11:56:54 AM
I think the Ohio River Bridge needs to be cancelled. People have been driving the US 41 bridge for years. Who cares if it doesn't have wide enough shoulders? If you can't stay in your lane you shouldn't be driving. Eventually when the bridges need redone, you can put them under construction an do what their doing in Louisville. Building brand new bridges would be a waste of money.

Are you aware that the Evansville-Henderson metro is the largest metro by far on the Ohio and even Mississippi River with a single highway crossing?

It may seem adequate to the casual traveler from Terre Haute passing through on the weekend, but there can be serious backups during the week. This is problematic for the thousands of people who must cross it daily for work and school requirements, not to mention medical issues.

I have never heard your claim that a short bypass and utilizing the current bridges is being considered. I do think a fairly quick and adequate temporary solution would be to build a couple of overpasses along the Henderson strip and create an urban freeway through there. Similar to what was done with US 231 in Huntsville for example. Fixing the strip and closing the grade crossings at Wolf Hills on the KY side and Waterworks Road on the Indiana side would eliminate most of the accidents which now back up the traffic and would provide a limited access route for 69 while the new bridge is being worked out.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on June 11, 2013, 12:08:22 PM
I have never heard your claim that a short bypass and utilizing the current bridges is being considered. I do think a fairly quick and adequate temporary solution would be to build a couple of overpasses along the Henderson strip and create an urban freeway through there. Similar to what was done with US 231 in Huntsville for example. Fixing the strip and closing the grade crossings at Wolf Hills on the KY side and Waterworks Road on the Indiana side would eliminate most of the accidents which now back up the traffic and would provide a limited access route for 69 while the new bridge is being worked out.

There would barely be enough room to do even what is done with US 231 in Huntsville, which is not constructed to interstate standards. A lot of businesses would either have to be relocated or bulldozed in order to make room for something that is adequate for through I-69 traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 11, 2013, 12:21:53 PM
Yes, there is barely enough room, but you could get 4 lanes up in the air with a couple of one way frontage lanes. I agree, it wouldn't be interstate standards, but would serve as an adequate temporary fix until the can get the funding for the new bridges. Just sign it US 41/Temp. 69
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2013, 06:37:39 PM
Yes, there is barely enough room, but you could get 4 lanes up in the air with a couple of one way frontage lanes. I agree, it wouldn't be interstate standards, but would serve as an adequate temporary fix until the can get the funding for the new bridges. Just sign it US 41/Temp. 69

The temporary fix would likely cost more than the permanent facility; bridges are not cheap, and there are still likely to be some ROW and easements required.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 11, 2013, 11:00:00 PM
http://www.in.gov/ifa/files/RFQ__for__I-69_Section_5.pdf
The Indiana Finance Authority has released the RFQ for Section 5
Final ROD from FHWA is expected in July 2013.  INDOT's going to start buying the needed ROW once that completes.
One of the project goals is "Achieve substantial completion for the Project by Fall 2016", which is a pretty aggressive time frame.  I would assume that would mean all the new overpasses/interchanges are open to traffic, stoplights removed, new lanes open etc, but there might still be some cleanup work to do in 2017 before they could sign the whole thing as I-69 to Martinsville.
(above quote from Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg223436#msg223436) thread)
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/no-headline---interstate_69_update/) reports that Gary Valentine, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s new project manager for Interstate 69, told the Henderson Chamber of Commerce that several projects over the next two to three years on both the Pennyrile and Purchase Parkways will allow I-69 shields to be installed from Mayfield to Henderson
(above quote from I-69 in KY  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg216590#msg216590) thread)
from the current six-year highway plan:
PROJECT REVIEW TO LOCATE ALIGNMENT FOR INTERSTATE 69 AROUND HENDERSON FROM E.T. BREATHITT PARKWAY (PENNYRILE PARKWAY) TO OHIO RIVER CROSSING. (I-69 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT). (10CCR) D $1 million, 2012
(above quote from I-69 Ohio River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg186475#msg186475) thread)
... I emailed ... KYTC ... about the extent of progress on the above project [and their reply]:
Quote
The project you referenced in your question is in the early stages of planning.  The Recommended Highway Plan has money set aside for its construction in 2019.  This is a target construction date and at this time we are uncertain as to if that date is realistic or not.
(above quote from I-69 in KY  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg187836#msg187836) thread)
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (pp. 26-27, 45 of pdf; pp. 21-22, 40 of document)
(http://i.imgur.com/NBDcZUA.jpg)

Reading the above tea leaves in this thread, and the Indiana and Kentucky threads, I think the current thinking may be to have significant progress on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in the 2018-2020 time frame. In the meantime, I think the message will continue to be hammered home that tolls are an essential part of the bridge project. A 2018-2020 target could be pushed back by Indiana Gov. Pence's stated commitment in this May 23 article (http://www.indystar.com/article/20130522/NEWS05/305220056/Indiana-Gov-Mike-Pence-says-he-committed-finishing-69-into-Indianapolis-toll-free) to finish I-69 to Indianapolis without tolls:

Quote
“I want to be clear ­today. I am firmly committed to completing I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis,”  Pence said to applause from a couple of hundred contractors, designers and financial firms at an Indiana Government Center South ­forum on how to take part in construction of the next section of I-69 to be built.
That’s a 21-mile section from Bloomington to Martinsville.
But Pence said the job won’t be done until the ­interstate links to I-465 in Marion County, allowing I-69 to fi­nally stretch from Evansville in the south to the Michigan border north of Fort Wayne. While I-69 has long connected Indianapolis to northeastern Indiana, the southern leg remained just a dream ­until Gov. Mitch Daniels launched it during his ­administration.
“The message here ­today is we’re going to finish what we started,”  Pence told reporters. “And we’re going to use all the resources that we have at our disposal to do that in a way that serves the interests of taxpayers and is efficient and effective and under budget.”
Pence said there are no plans for tolls on the highway. “It’s certainly not in our proposal or our thinking at this time . . . and we’re not advocating for that.”
He said completing I-69 is a higher priority for him than other transportation projects, including widening I-70 and building the so-called Commerce Connector south and east of Marion County.

With Indiana's share of the bridge project in the neighborhood of $305 million, and Pence's current commitment to build the I-69 Martinsville to Indianapolis segment without tolls, tolls would have to finance a significant percentage of Indiana's share in order to meet a 2018-2020 time frame. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 12, 2013, 10:03:55 AM
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge .... With Indiana's share of the bridge project in the neighborhood of $305 million, and Pence's current commitment to build the I-69 Martinsville to Indianapolis segment without tolls, tolls would have to finance a significant percentage of Indiana's share in order to meet a 2018-2020 time frame.

On pages 47-49/122 of the Final Findings (pages 42-44 of the document), an analysis is performed under three scenarios to determine what percentage of the bridge's project cost could be covered by innovative financing.  The three scenarios and the percentage covered by innovative financing:

1. Base Case: This case assumes the SIU’s financing is solely supported by toll revenues. 71%.

2. Case 1: Under this case, the security for the bonds and the TIFIA loan are enhanced by a contractual obligation of the State DOT to pay operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, and replacement expenses to the extent toll revenues are not sufficient. This back‐up obligation or “credit enhancement”  allows the bonds and TIFIA loan to be secured by a pledge of gross toll revenues. 90%.

3. Case 2: This case improves on Case 1 by adding a full secondary lien security or legal pledge to the debt from a high credit worthy nontoll revenue source(s) such as a state transportation trust fund or a state’s full faith and credit. This significantly improves the SIU’s credit rating to an assumed ”˜AA‐’ that results in additional project debt proceeds. 100%.

From having to come up with approximately $85 million in a toll-only base case scenario to having the project financed entirely through alternative innovative financing in the Case 2 scenario, it seems like Indiana could definitely meet the 2018-2020 time frame independently of whatever progress may or may not be occurring on the Martinsville to Indianapolis section of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 12, 2013, 10:14:50 AM
Here's what I think has to happen to get this done:
- Kentucky passes a law allowing a P3 for the I-69 bridge project
- Indiana, Kentucky and private company jointly enter into a P3 agreement to design, build, finance,  maintain, and collect tolls
- Private company gets X amount up front & during construction in milestone payments from IN & KY and whatever Federal funding can be found.
- IN & KY both pass laws that create a tax district in Evansville/Henderson MSA.  Revenue is collected via some combination  of taxes/fees.  I'd probably have the majority of the money coming from fees for vehicle registration (more for commerical vehicles, less for normal ones).  All that would go into an investment fund like Indiana is doing with Major Moves 2020, ran by the Indiana Finance Authority & whatever the KY equivalent is.  I'd also consider a smaller fee spread out throughout SW IN/NW KY to add to that (much like how Marion County, IN has a higher amusement tax to pay for Lucas Oil Stadium and the suburb counties also got a smaller tax increase).
- Tolls would be collected on the bridge via electronic tolling.  Everyone in the Evansville/Henderson MSA would be credited per vehicle for the fee they had already paid (i.e., if fee was $100 per vehicle, they'd get $100 in their account each year).  After that gets depleted you'd get charged for tolls on the bridge.  You could also go with reduced tolls for people in the MSA, but I think this would be a fairer way to do it and also would encourage people to use the new road instead of the existing bridge crossing.

The private company gets paid off over the duration of the contract by a combination of:
- The state funding from IN & KY up front and whatever Federal money can also be used (probably should be around 1/3rd of the cost)
- Tolls on the bridge
- Tax revenue from the new Evansville/Henderson MSA tax district and investment money
- Various other state/federal funding if tolls + tax revenue district combined weren't enough to cover the payment to the private company

I would also make sure there is an option to buy the private company out and remove the tolls if Federal funding could be found to pay off the rest of the bridge, or if there was enough revenue from the tax district to pay off the bridge.

Basically this way you can split the cost so that Evansville itself picks up more of the tab.  They're the ones who will benefit economically from the bridge but they're probably not driving to Henderson *that* much to cover the cost with tolls.  The State of Indiana doesn't have to pay more than its fair share (for a bridge that people from Indiana probably won't use that much).  Kentucky gets some help so they don't have to pay for 2/3rds of the bridge alone, and hopefully the people in Henderson don't get completely hammered on tolls.  This setup should avoid some of the issues that probably will arise with the tolls on the Ohio River Bridges project in Louisville (i.e. people from S. Indiana paying most of the tolls when they commute to work & back, Louisville residents discouraged from traveling into Indiana).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 16, 2013, 08:53:10 PM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/may/10/evansville-mayor-wants-to-see-more-cooperation/) to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:
Quote
concerning the challenges of securing funds for an I-69 bridge across the Ohio River from Evansville to Henderson, Winnecke said, "each community needs to be lobbying our respective congressional delegations to make sure this is a priority for both Henderson and Evansville." ....
this editorial (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/30/another-vote-for-action-on-bridge/) ... perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:
Quote
There's another reason to act now. With plans for two new bridges in the Louisville area moving forward, it looks like the next emphasis by the powers that be will be on either our bridge or one replacing the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Northern Kentucky with Cincinnati.
Competing for attention with a big town like Cincinnati and Kentucky's Golden Triangle will be tough.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's office has issued a June 12 press release (http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ff0b62f1-5762-451b-a994-5a2529858bce&ContentType_id=c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=0fd6ddca-6a05-4b26-8710-a0b7b59a8f1f) about his recent meeting with Secretary of Transportation Nominee Anthony Foxx about "Kentucky priorities", and both the Brent Spence Bridge and the I-69 Ohio River Bridge were mentioned as priorities:

Quote
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed Secretary of Transportation Nominee Anthony Foxx to his office in the U.S. Capitol.
The meeting provided Senator McConnell the opportunity to highlight the importance of several Kentucky transportation projects, including the Brent Spence Bridge in Northern Kentucky, Ohio River Bridges in Louisville and the I-69 Bridge in Henderson.
“As Republican Leader, I am able to meet face to face with Administration officials to ensure that Kentucky priorities are brought to their attention,”  Senator McConnell said. “I appreciate Mayor Foxx taking the time to discuss with me the importance of several Kentucky transportation projects and the challenges to building them during these tough economic times.”

At least Senator McConnell has been successfully lobbied to include the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in the conversation as a "Kentucky priority".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 22, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
I didn't see this asked before, so forgive me if it has been, but is there even a map of the proposed routing?  All I've heard is that it will be 3 miles east of US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 22, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
is there even a map of the proposed routing?

The project currently has neither a Final Environmental Impact Statement nor a Record of Decision. However, a 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes a map which is part of this post:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg186092#msg186092

Kentucky is currently studying possible changes to the corridor in its approach to the bridge:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg216589#msg216589

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/no-headline---interstate_69_update/) reports that Gary Valentine, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s new project manager for Interstate 69 .... also spoke about trying to shave costs by shortening the new terrain Henderson approach to the bridge:
Quote
The preferred corridor branches off from the Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson “what I consider way early,”  which will require the construction of about nine miles of new highway at a cost of about $10 million a mile. He said highway officials will look at branching off closer to Henderson.
....
A more recent version of the above-quoted article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/19/i-69-prospects-look-good-8212-except-for-the/) has Valentine providing more of an explanation of why he would consider altering the route of the Henderson new terrain approach:
Quote
Having two controlled access highways paralleling one another in that stretch doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, he said, so highway officials will be looking at branching off closer to Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
Quote
“Without it, Evansville simply becomes a cul-de-sac for southbound traffic,”  Winnecke said.
:clap:
Great line from Evansville's mayor.

Mayor Winnecke's counterpart across the river has also recently spoken about the bridge. On July 25, Henderson Mayor Steve Austin gave his "State of the City" address.  In this article (http://surfky.com/index.php/news/local/henderson/35153-henderson-mayor-reports-city-is-in-sound-financial-shape-at-state-of-the-city-address), he describes the bridge as "the top priority for the city of Henderson":

Quote
Getting a $1.4 billion bridge that will connect I-69 between Kentucky and Indiana is the top priority for the city of Henderson, Mayor Steve Austin told a crowd gathered at the Henderson Fine Arts Center on Thursday.

In another article about Mayor Austin's address (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/25/sidewalk-dining-proposed-for-downtown-area/), he claims that, "We’re going to get this done one way or another":

Quote
Austin wound up his speech by talking about the proposed bridge for Interstate 69, which is estimated to cost $1.4 billion, but will link major highway improvements on both sides of the river that are already well under way.
“The bridge is a tremendous opportunity but it’s also very difficult,”  he said. “It’s very expensive to build. We’ve got to find that money. We’re going to get this done one way or another. We’re going to look at everything.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 27, 2013, 08:36:37 PM
well it's not completely a cul-de-sac, since us41 has its own bridge
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 28, 2013, 02:50:11 AM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac”  in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.

It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.  I don't know the ROWs being considered, but 41 traffic may not alone keep it all open.  Maybe for their sake, this leg of 41 should be Business 69, if they do that anymore.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 28, 2013, 08:43:10 AM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac”  in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.

It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.  I don't know the ROWs being considered, but 41 traffic may not alone keep it all open.  Maybe for their sake, this leg of 41 should be Business 69, if they do that anymore.

Considering it's highly likely that tolls will be part of the funding mechanism for the I-69 bridge, I would guess that there would still be a ton of traffic on US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 28, 2013, 08:35:07 PM
Does anyone know if the proposed bridge will go over the green river also or is the bridge to the I west of the confluence.
The Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf) identifies Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document) and describes Alternative 2's Indiana approach as follows (page 11/23 of pdf):
Quote
Alternative 2 utilizes the existing I-164 alignment from its northern terminus at I-64 in Warrick County, to just east of the Green River Road interchange and west of Angel Mounds State Memorial Site. From that location, the alternative leaves the existing I-164 alignment and heads south to cross the Ohio River immediately west of the mouth of the Green River.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg235146#msg235146) thread)
I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/28/antique-street-lamps-to-sprout-on-second-street/) reports on how the anticipated location of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge ("probably somewhere near the mouth of the Green River"), and the anticipated new terrain approach to the bridge will probably make Second Street (KY 351) (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2nd+Street,+Henderson,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.835683,-87.57906&spn=0.052535,0.076818&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=second+street+henderson+&t=h&hnear=2nd+St,+Henderson,+Kentucky&z=14) "the logical front door when I-69 happens" (essentially replacing the US 41 North strip); as a result, Henderson already has efforts underway to improve the Second Street (KY 351) corridor:

Quote
Antique-style lamp posts will go marching up Second Street later this fiscal year as the city embarks on making it the community’s new front door.
And a proposed revamping of the city zoning ordinance will aid in that effort as city officials hope to encourage new investment and development along the corridor.
The long-term vision, of course, is that at some point the Interstate 69 bridge will become a reality – probably somewhere near the mouth of the Green River. City officials think the new bridge approaches will prevent U.S. 41-North from continuing as the city’s main entrance.
“I think eventually that Second Street will become our new I-69 entrance,”  said Mayor Steve Austin.
“If that is the case, then we would like for our entrance to our community to be as attractive as possible.”
“It will be the logical front door when I-69 happens,” said City Manager Russell Sights, noting most visitors’ first look at the community is probably the U.S. 41-North strip – not exactly the city’s most attractive aspect.
“With some proper signage we could encourage (motorists) to use Second Street as the main entrance, which is a five-lane highway direct shot to the downtown,”  one of Henderson’s best attributes.
The city has drawn up a $688,000 multi-year plan for improving the corridor. In the current fiscal year 22 lamp posts will be placed between the overpass and Alvasia Street at a cost of $176,000. Another $64,000 will pay for sidewalk, curb and gutter repair and replacement in the same area.
Next fiscal year another 20 lamps will sprout up between Alvasia and Adams streets at a cost of $160,000, while another $64,000 is slated for sidewalk and other concrete repairs there. The final phase, in fiscal year 2015-16, will see the final 20 lamp posts and concrete repairs at the same costs between Adams and Green streets ....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 30, 2013, 12:34:09 AM
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac”  in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.

It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

I'm curious about the anticipated effects on the KY side, with 69 potentially drawing off a lot of the (tax-generating) business traffic from 41.  I don't know the ROWs being considered, but 41 traffic may not alone keep it all open.  Maybe for their sake, this leg of 41 should be Business 69, if they do that anymore.

Considering the proximity of US 41 to both the central business district of Evansville and Henderson proper, I would imagine US 41 would still be the primary route for local traffic between Henderson and most of Evansville. As others have mentioned, apparently quite a few people still use US 41 through Evansville instead of using I-164.  I can't imagine why, but if that is the case, I would assume that would continue as well for US 41 through traffic.

My guess with these traffic patterns, the US 41 bridges would still have a heavier traffic count than the new I-69 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on October 08, 2013, 09:13:06 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/14/30pt-hed1-10-hed1-10-inches-p/) reports that the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce has hired the former president and CEO of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Christy Gillenwater, to be its president and CEO.
In a Letter From the Chamber President (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/01/no-headline---ebj_chamberpresletter/), Gillenwater .... intends to cooperate in identifying a funding mechanism for the I-69 Ohio River bridge
Some Democrats and Republicans appear to be cooperating in an effort to bring home some federal I-69 funding, presumably in the hope that I-69 will have a prominent role in the 2015 national freight plan*:
http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/us-congressman-blake-farenthold-launches-bipartisan-interstate-69-congressional-005905
* with up to 95% federal funding for interstate projects (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/freight.cfm):
Quote
Prioritization of projects to improve freight movement
Authorizes DOT to allow a maximum Federal share of 95% for an Interstate System project (or of 90% for a non-Interstate System project) if the project makes a demonstrable improvement in the efficiency of freight movement and is identified in a State freight plan (as described in section 1118 of MAP-21). [§1116]
MAP-21 national freight plan was discussed at the recent Intermodal Freight Conference in Memphis:
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/sep/26/economist-outlines-us-freight-network-at-intermodal-conference/#comments
Quote
an appearance from U.S. Department of Transportation chief economist Jack Wells ... spoke to the group about ... development of a national freight strategic plan by 2015.
“We are going to implement this as a multimodal plan,”  Wells said. “MAP-21 defines a national freight network as a highway-only network, but we think it is important to have a multimodal approach to freight planning, whether it is at the state or national level.” .
(bottom quote from Bipartisan I-69 Congressional Caucus Launched (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10534.msg249583#msg249583) thread)

In another Letter from the Chamber President (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/07/ebj_chamberpresletter/), Gillenwater illustrates that she has picked up the "multimodal" message loud and clear by referencing it in regard to the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and the completion of I-69 to Indianapolis:

Quote
Our mission and vision directed us to focus on several strategic goals ... Another key focus will be to improve multimodal regional transportation infrastructure – with the completion of an interstate-grade I-69 bridge and seamless connection between Indianapolis and Evansville via Interstate 69.

Is there a need for another rail crossing in the Evansville-Henderson area that could be incorporated into the I-69 bridge in order to possibly strengthen a bid for some federal "mutimodal" freight funding (if any federal funding will be available at all in 2015)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on October 09, 2013, 09:10:49 AM
The issue is I don't even see a rail line anywhere close to where the proposed new I-69 bridge is going to go.

The existing CSX line seems to run on the other side of Evansville, on the W side of US 41, then goes under the Lloyd Expressway (SR 62), goes through the industrial district in Evansville, then basically follows the river on the Indiana side all the way down to Henderson and then crosses going east-southeast into downtown Henderson.

So you're either looking at miles of new railroad, some of which would have to run through downtown Evansville, or running I-69 through Evansville to meet up with the railroad track.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on October 09, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
There used to be a railroad car ferry across the river near the US 41 bridge. In its last days it was abandoned by the Illinois Central and leased by an electric interurban.
http://www.hendersonkyhistory.com/Interurban.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ufnPiYmy48C&pg=PA124
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge To Be Completed in Eight Years?
Post by: Grzrd on October 14, 2013, 04:44:40 PM
Reading the above tea leaves in this thread, and the Indiana and Kentucky threads, I think the current thinking may be to have significant progress on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in the 2018-2020 time frame.
Henderson Mayor Steve Austin gave his "State of the City" address .... In another article about Mayor Austin's address (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/jul/25/sidewalk-dining-proposed-for-downtown-area/), ...:
Quote
Austin wound up his speech by talking about the proposed bridge for Interstate 69 ...“The bridge is a tremendous opportunity but it’s also very difficult,”  he said. “It’s very expensive to build. We’ve got to find that money. We’re going to get this done one way or another. We’re going to look at everything.”
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke had a good line at the May meeting, saying that without a bridge Interstate 69 becomes “a cul-de-sac”  in our area.
A cul-de-sac can be a nice place to have your house, quieter, less traffic. It’s not so good a place to put your business.
It's good for Evansville and 69 boosters to have Winnecke staying vocal about it.  Evansville is of the size that business boosters have plenty to work with but have to keep working with it all the time.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/14/advocates-want-i-69-bridge-built-eight-years/) reports that Winnecke and Brad Schneider, president of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce, have committed to keep working with it by announcing both the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge, and a self-imposed eight-year timeline to complete the I-69 Ohio River bridge project:

Quote
Proponents of building an Interstate 69 bridge across the river between Henderson and Evansville said Monday they want to see the span completed within eight years.
“That’s our objective,”  Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said
at a news conference announcing the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge.
“It’s an aggressive timeline,”  Winnecke acknowledged. “We feel if we don’t have an aggressive timeline, it delays the project.”
Organizers intend to lobby in the state capitals of Frankfort and Indianapolis as well as in Washington, D.C. But they also want to change local perceptions.
“We have had citizens thinking it won’t happen in their lifetime,”  Brad Schneider, president of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce, told reporters.
“We have to talk about it being inevitable, not impossible,”  Schneider said ....
“BridgeLink”  – getting an I-69 bridge constructed here – “will happen,”  the Evansville mayor declared. “It will happen in the next five to eight years,”  assuming three years of lobbying and preconstruction environmental and design work, followed by a five-year construction timetable.

Austin also spoke at the BridgeLink announcement ceremony:

Quote
“But I-69 will not be complete and will not bring economic growth to our area until the supporting bridge is built across the river here,”  Henderson Mayor Steve Austin declared ... As you know, those structures are getting older,”  Austin said. “One is almost 50 years old and the other is (80) years old.”

At least they have set a goal.

edit

The article includes a photograph from the announcement ceremony.  Of interest from the photo is an I-69 shield that has a red bridge at the top of the shield:

(http://i.imgur.com/uazSHHa.png)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on October 19, 2013, 09:30:04 AM
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/funding-i69-construction-uncertain-indiana-kentucky-57197/

Here's a pretty inaccurate story from WTIU, the PBS station in Bloomington, IN, mainly focusing on the Evansville bridge with some footage and interviews from the I-69 conference in Madisonville, KY.  They do compare Kentucky's I-69 construction to Indiana's and it's pretty funny.

Basically:
1) Acts like Kentucky's I-69 costs are so much cheaper than Indiana's just because they "aren't building new roads", no mention of Kentucky's roads already being near-Interstate quality parkways.
2) Says there's "no money for I-69 left in Indiana" when the state budget has a $400 million "Major Moves 2020" fund set aside.
3) Says only 3 states are working on I-69 (not the case) and implies all the others completely stopped working on it.
4) Uses a graphic from Wikipedia showing the current state of the road to show the state of the road once the segment to Bloomington is complete
5) Implies that Mike Pence is going to install tolls on the road to Indianapolis to fund I-69
6) Says "we don't know what Indiana is going to do to finish the road" when Section 5 is already up for bid as a public/private partnership
7) Implies that Evansville doesn't care about finishing the road to Indianapolis but wants their bridge.
8) Shows the 8th District Congressmen in Indiana who is part of the I-69 congress acting like they can't get federal money (not sure what the point of him being in the I-69 caucus is!)  I'm guessing he may have been asked a question about funding the road to Indy and not the bridge.
9) Implies that no federal money is being used for I-69 construction
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on October 19, 2013, 12:27:07 PM
Isn't it cheaper to make minor upgrade to existing roads than to build brand new ones though?  The only new alignment I-69 in KY is the Ohio River Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on October 20, 2013, 08:10:41 AM
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/funding-i69-construction-uncertain-indiana-kentucky-57197/

Here's a pretty inaccurate story from WTIU, the PBS station in Bloomington, IN, mainly focusing on the Evansville bridge with some footage and interviews from the I-69 conference in Madisonville, KY.  They do compare Kentucky's I-69 construction to Indiana's and it's pretty funny.

Basically:
1) Acts like Kentucky's I-69 costs are so much cheaper than Indiana's just because they "aren't building new roads", no mention of Kentucky's roads already being near-Interstate quality parkways.
2) Says there's "no money for I-69 left in Indiana" when the state budget has a $400 million "Major Moves 2020" fund set aside.
3) Says only 3 states are working on I-69 (not the case) and implies all the others completely stopped working on it.
4) Uses a graphic from Wikipedia showing the current state of the road to show the state of the road once the segment to Bloomington is complete
5) Implies that Mike Pence is going to install tolls on the road to Indianapolis to fund I-69
6) Says "we don't know what Indiana is going to do to finish the road" when Section 5 is already up for bid as a public/private partnership
7) Implies that Evansville doesn't care about finishing the road to Indianapolis but wants their bridge.
8) Shows the 8th District Congressmen in Indiana who is part of the I-69 congress acting like they can't get federal money (not sure what the point of him being in the I-69 caucus is!)  I'm guessing he may have been asked a question about funding the road to Indy and not the bridge.
9) Implies that no federal money is being used for I-69 construction

Also, the caption under the picture, "A barge moves across the Ohio River near Evansville. Right now, there is no bridge to connect Interstate 69 from Kentucky to Indiana" is misleading. Someone unfamiliar with the area may think there is no bridge to Kentucky at all in the Evansville area. The mayor's cul-de-sac comment adds to that confusion.

Isn't it cheaper to make minor upgrade to existing roads than to build brand new ones though?  The only new alignment I-69 in KY is the Ohio River Bridge.
Of course, but only Kentucky has freeways to upgrade. This is eluding to why Indiana didn't select the US 41/I-70 route which is very indirect and would still have been very costly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 09, 2014, 12:17:33 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/14/advocates-want-i-69-bridge-built-eight-years/)

The above-linked October 14 article discusses the involvement of Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwestern Indiana Christy Gillenwater in BridgeLink:

Quote
Proponents of building an Interstate 69 bridge across the river between Henderson and Evansville said Monday they want to see the span completed within eight years.
“That’s our objective,”  Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said at a news conference announcing the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge
....
“We’re getting set for what we think will be a very aggressive agenda,”  Christy Gillenwater, president and CEO of the Evansville-based chamber, said. “We all think the bridge will be a reality if we all work aggressively together.” ....
The BridgeLink board is made up of representatives from both sides of the river ....
Evansville representatives include Vice Chairman Bob Koch, Winnecke, Gillenwater, Evan Beck, Ed Hafer, Jeff Mulzer, Mike Schopmeyer and Chris Traylor.

Winnecke and Gillenwater both recently included the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as an essential component of the top priority of completing I-69 both north and south of Evansville.  This January 6 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/packed-house-for-2013-lunch-with-the-mayor/) reports that Winnecke discussed the importance of the bridge at a recent Lunch with the Mayor event:

Quote
The first project mentioned is the Interstate 69 Bridge spanning the Ohio River, connecting Indiana and Kentucky. Mayor Winnecke is a board member of BridgeLink, a nonprofit organization launched as a joint effort between The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana and the Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce. He called the completion of I-69 northbound and southbound “the most important infrastructure project of our lifetime in this area.”

Similarly, Gillenwater recently wrote a January 6 Letter from the president of the Chamber of Commerce (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/ebj_chamberpresidentletter/) in which she expressly includes the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as part of the Chamber's top legislative priority of the completion of I-69:

Quote
The Chamber’s board of directors recently adopted a magnanimous 2014 Legislative Agenda ....
Our top 5 legislative priorities in 2014 will be:
1. Completion of Interstate 69: Completion of I-69 from Indianapolis to Kentucky with a bridge over the Ohio River. Without question, the completion of I-69 is the most important issue on the minds of our members. It will take all of us to continue our forward momentum, stemming from decades of previous work by countless regional leaders.

They continue to bang the drum .......
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 09, 2014, 02:14:07 PM
Eight years? I think someone went to Colorado and partook of their new legal substance if they think the bridge can be done in eight years, if the I-265 bridge is a bellwether.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on January 09, 2014, 05:56:40 PM
Isn't it cheaper to make minor upgrade to existing roads than to build brand new ones though?  The only new alignment I-69 in KY is the Ohio River Bridge.

The cheaper option is situation dependent based on type of minor upgrade, available ROW, roadside development, and/or terrain.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 09, 2014, 10:06:58 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/14/advocates-want-i-69-bridge-built-eight-years/)

The above-linked October 14 article discusses the involvement of Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Southwestern Indiana Christy Gillenwater in BridgeLink:

Quote
Proponents of building an Interstate 69 bridge across the river between Henderson and Evansville said Monday they want to see the span completed within eight years.
“That’s our objective,”  Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said at a news conference announcing the creation of BridgeLink, a Henderson-Evansville partnership to campaign for the bridge
....
“We’re getting set for what we think will be a very aggressive agenda,”  Christy Gillenwater, president and CEO of the Evansville-based chamber, said. “We all think the bridge will be a reality if we all work aggressively together.” ....
The BridgeLink board is made up of representatives from both sides of the river ....
Evansville representatives include Vice Chairman Bob Koch, Winnecke, Gillenwater, Evan Beck, Ed Hafer, Jeff Mulzer, Mike Schopmeyer and Chris Traylor.

Winnecke and Gillenwater both recently included the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as an essential component of the top priority of completing I-69 both north and south of Evansville.  This January 6 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/packed-house-for-2013-lunch-with-the-mayor/) reports that Winnecke discussed the importance of the bridge at a recent Lunch with the Mayor event:

Quote
The first project mentioned is the Interstate 69 Bridge spanning the Ohio River, connecting Indiana and Kentucky. Mayor Winnecke is a board member of BridgeLink, a nonprofit organization launched as a joint effort between The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana and the Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce. He called the completion of I-69 northbound and southbound “the most important infrastructure project of our lifetime in this area.”

Similarly, Gillenwater recently wrote a January 6 Letter from the president of the Chamber of Commerce (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jan/06/ebj_chamberpresidentletter/) in which she expressly includes the I-69 Ohio River Bridge as part of the Chamber's top legislative priority of the completion of I-69:

Quote
The Chamber’s board of directors recently adopted a magnanimous 2014 Legislative Agenda ....
Our top 5 legislative priorities in 2014 will be:
1. Completion of Interstate 69: Completion of I-69 from Indianapolis to Kentucky with a bridge over the Ohio River. Without question, the completion of I-69 is the most important issue on the minds of our members. It will take all of us to continue our forward momentum, stemming from decades of previous work by countless regional leaders.

They continue to bang the drum .......

I could think of so many more projects that are more important in Indiana right now than finishing the questionably useful 69
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on January 10, 2014, 08:04:11 AM
I could think of so many more projects that are more important in Indiana right now than finishing the questionably useful 69

Completing I-69 including the building the Ohio River bridge is important as the southwestern part of the state was certainly overlooked. This new highway could also relieve some of the traffic from I-65 and would provide a faster route to the southern states. The part of I-69 that has questionable value is between Memhis and Shreveport, IMO. The only other Indiana projects (other than those ones underway like the Illiana, the east-end bridge, and SR 641) comparable in value from a statewide perspective are filling the gaps on US 31 north of Indy and widening I-65 and I-70.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 08:26:58 AM
I could think of so many more projects that are more important in Indiana right now than finishing the questionably useful 69

Completing I-69
Maybe.
including the building the Ohio River bridge
Not really. The tie-up is at the at-grades south of the bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on January 10, 2014, 09:31:58 AM
Not really. The tie-up is at the at-grades south of the bridges.

So then how would you alleviate it without a bridge?

Not to mention the bridge is routinely down to one lane.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 09:45:12 AM
Not really. The tie-up is at the at-grades south of the bridges.

So then how would you alleviate it without a bridge?
Gee, I wonder. Too bad there's no way to improve traffic flow on a surface road without bypassing it.

PS: that would be a Kentucky project. Hardly the most important in Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 10:27:25 AM
I-69 definitely should go on the US 41 bridge. Then I-69 should bypass Henderson to the east. Then they could save some money. Which I happen to think I-69 is a big waste of money in the first place. And no I'm not a bitter Hautian. If I-69 wouldv'e came to Terre Haute I still would've viewed it as a big waste of money, because US 41 is already a good highway from SR 641 - Evansville. Just like the US 41 bridge, it is a perfectly fine bridge. I do however think a Terre Haute bypass (interstate quality) would be a good idea, becasue US 41 in Terre Haute is not a good highway. Multilaning US 50 from Bedford to Washington wouldv'e been the best way. Then Bloomington has their multilane highway from Bloomington to Evansville for a lot less money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on January 10, 2014, 11:07:33 AM
I-69 definitely should go on the US 41 bridge. Then I-69 should bypass Henderson to the east. Then they could save some money. Which I happen to think I-69 is a big waste of money in the first place. And no I'm not a bitter Hautian. If I-69 wouldv'e came to Terre Haute I still would've viewed it as a big waste of money, because US 41 is already a good highway from SR 641 - Evansville. Just like the US 41 bridge, it is a perfectly fine bridge. I do however think a Terre Haute bypass (interstate quality) would be a good idea, becasue US 41 in Terre Haute is not a good highway. Multilaning US 50 from Bedford to Washington wouldv'e been the best way. Then Bloomington has their multilane highway from Bloomington to Evansville for a lot less money.

Maybe right through Audubon Park then?

With one span over 80 years old and traffic being restricted to one lane each on probably a monthly basis, it is time to get a new bridge project started.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 11:44:09 AM
I have a better idea. Upgrade 41 through Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Indyroads on January 10, 2014, 12:50:17 PM
if it is going to take that long to do the new bridge then they should post (TEMP) I-69 shields like they did when I-5 was being built. CALTRANS had put up TEMP I-5 shields on SR-99. This way the route can be signed continuously until the toll crossing is done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on January 10, 2014, 12:50:53 PM
How about a new US41 bridge a couple of miles upstream and rebuild around east of Henderson? ?
  :biggrin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on January 10, 2014, 02:26:07 PM
Can we still do "TEMP" routes? When the West Virginia Turnpike was still two lanes, there were "TO I-77" signs in place. (Not sure if I-64 was signed, it was not complete east of Beckley until 1988.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 02:50:17 PM
Can we still do "TEMP" routes? When the West Virginia Turnpike was still two lanes, there were "TO I-77" signs in place. (Not sure if I-64 was signed, it was not complete east of Beckley until 1988.)
They're now FUTURE routes. See I-26 in Asheville, where the eventual plan is to bypass the old freeway to the west.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 02:56:00 PM
I still say the best idea would've been to have just multilaned US 50 from Bedford - Washington and left everything else alone. It would've been a lot cheaper and more projects in Indiana that are truly needed would've gotten done a lot sooner than they are now.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 10, 2014, 07:00:11 PM
I have a better idea. Upgrade 41 through Henderson.

That's a pretty busy commercial strip. The locals would not allow that to happen if it results in a lot of businesses being closed. It would be awfully hard to do a system of frontage roads and grade-separated crossroads through there. About the best that could be done is RIRO's with U-turns at strategically placed traffic lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 10, 2014, 08:10:00 PM
I-69 definitely should go on the US 41 bridge. Then I-69 should bypass Henderson to the east. Then they could save some money. Which I happen to think I-69 is a big waste of money in the first place. And no I'm not a bitter Hautian. If I-69 wouldv'e came to Terre Haute I still would've viewed it as a big waste of money, because US 41 is already a good highway from SR 641 - Evansville. Just like the US 41 bridge, it is a perfectly fine bridge. I do however think a Terre Haute bypass (interstate quality) would be a good idea, becasue US 41 in Terre Haute is not a good highway. Multilaning US 50 from Bedford to Washington wouldv'e been the best way. Then Bloomington has their multilane highway from Bloomington to Evansville for a lot less money.

great if they did that, Indiana wouldn't have to pay a dime.  The us 41 bridge is entirely in kentucky
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 10, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
^^^ Another good point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on January 10, 2014, 10:43:26 PM
great if they did that, Indiana wouldn't have to pay a dime.  The us 41 bridge is entirely in kentucky

Obviously not true. I'd be curious to know if any of the Ohio River bridges have not been significantly cost shared and since Kentucky "owns" a majority of the river most bridges are in KY. The currently under construction Milton-Madison and Louisville East end bridges are cost shared and would not exist otherwise.

Although, the biggest burden of sub-standard a road (current US41) will be mostly on Henderson. Maybe in time Kentucky will be motivated for a bigger share.

My fantasy would be to just quit arguing the inevitable and just build the damned I-69 bridge, move US41 to collocate with I-69 to south of Henderson and rename the existing US41 as a business route.  Further, when/if the older span of current US41 become unserviceable, its designation as a business route might justify reverting to a single two way bridge.





Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 11:13:12 PM
great if they did that, Indiana wouldn't have to pay a dime.  The us 41 bridge is entirely in kentucky

Obviously not true.

No, it is true. The old river course is north of the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on January 10, 2014, 11:42:53 PM
Seconded. The state line is approximately 1.1 mile north from the northern shore of the Ohio River.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 11, 2014, 12:31:42 AM
I was going to jump in there too about the location of the state line, well north of the river, where US-41 crosses. I came through there this week and can testify.

The selected location for the I-69 crossing is about where the Green River flows into the Ohio. At that location, the state line runs near the north bank of the Ohio. Presumably, the states would share the cost, since the bridges will benefit both states.

That does raise the question of who financed the US-41 crossings, back in the day. Although the entire bridges and approaches are in Kentucky, I suspect the cost was shared rather evenly. Does anyone know?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on January 11, 2014, 09:49:06 AM
I have wondered why some creative alternatives to the expensive new bridge solution have not been explored. Could the same technique used for the Milton-Madison Bridge be used to replace the old US 41 bridge? That project cost $103M, I think. I assume the majority of the project cost would be for the bridge itself. Is there enough room create a bypass north of Audubon State Park? It seems as if most of the original bypass route in Kentucky would still be viable.

For that matter, did they ever explore the possibility of buying and leveling some businesses on the US 41 commercial strip in Henderson and building the freeway there with a frontage road for the remaining ones? The US 31 freeway upgrade in Hamilton County, Indiana involved the leveling of many businesses (1 bank, 3 restaurants, 2-3 gas stations, 1 hotel, several stores). I can't imagine that being an expensive option compared to a new terrain route and completely new Ohio River Bridge.

Indiana would have to modify the current I-164/US 41 interchange and it would mess up the Indiana I-69 exit numbering by a mile or two, but that would be a small price to pay. The INDOT two tier numbering strategy would mean that only exits in the south section would need to be renumbered.

I assume the original study explored all options, but I wonder how they settled on one that may be too expensive to build.

BTW, I think Indiana pays 1/3 the cost of the US 41 bridge maintenance despite it being totally in Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 11, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
I have wondered why some creative alternatives to the expensive new bridge solution have not been explored. Could the same technique used for the Milton-Madison Bridge be used to replace the old US 41 bridge? That project cost $103M, I think. I assume the majority of the project cost would be for the bridge itself. Is there enough room create a bypass north of Audubon State Park? It seems as if most of the original bypass route in Kentucky would still be viable.

For that matter, did they ever explore the possibility of buying and leveling some businesses on the US 41 commercial strip in Henderson and building the freeway there with a frontage road for the remaining ones? The US 31 freeway upgrade in Hamilton County, Indiana involved the leveling of many businesses (1 bank, 3 restaurants, 2-3 gas stations, 1 hotel, several stores). I can't imagine that being an expensive option compared to a new terrain route and completely new Ohio River Bridge.

Indiana would have to modify the current I-164/US 41 interchange and it would mess up the Indiana I-69 exit numbering by a mile or two, but that would be a small price to pay. The INDOT two tier numbering strategy would mean that only exits in the south section would need to be renumbered.

I assume the original study explored all options, but I wonder how they settled on one that may be too expensive to build.

BTW, I think Indiana pays 1/3 the cost of the US 41 bridge maintenance despite it being totally in Kentucky.

There might have been room up until a year ago, but then a group of well-off investors bought several hundred acres of land north of Audubon and donated it to the state as an expansion of the park. Therefore it would be about impossible to build a bypass through there.

I believe IN & KY split the cost of the older NB bridge. Not sure about the SB. Here is a good resource with a lot of news clippings from Evansville's newspapers. Very helpful: http://local.evpl.org ... You can search for all kinds of stuff there, lots of history on the roads and bridges in the area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 11, 2014, 03:52:49 PM
http://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/Contact-Us.aspx

If anyone wants to know if Indiana pays any for maintenance of the US 41 twin bridges at Henderson, use this form to ask.

(I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps someone will ask and can post the answer.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 11, 2014, 06:23:52 PM
I sent the Transportation Cabinet a request for information on Indiana's contribution to the maintenance and construction costs of the US-41 bridges. I'll report back when I get a response.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 11, 2014, 06:24:29 PM
if us 41's bridges are in awful shape, they have 4 bridges they need to build.  It's also crazy that indiana pays for something that isn't even in it's boarders
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 11, 2014, 06:25:21 PM
It's also crazy that indiana pays for something that isn't even in it's boarders
http://www.cincinnatisouthernrailway.org/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 11, 2014, 07:42:19 PM
Good point, NE2. Of course, a government will pay for improvements outside its borders if it stands to benefit its citizens. The US-41 bridges allow citizens of the Evansville area easier access to points south for pleasure or business than the previous alternative (presumably a ferry or other boat-for-hire). They also allow Kentucky citizens easier access to Indiana to conduct business (spend money in the Hoosier economy). As a Hoosier, I've got no problem helping to finance crossings that benefit Indiana. The location is just a detail of little importance.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on January 11, 2014, 08:13:25 PM
I should have been more clear. Agreed, most bridges are in Kentucky, but are not built without Hoosier assistance in funding.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 12, 2014, 12:42:27 PM
Kentucky and its border states split up maintenance and construction costs on many of the bridges.

I'm pretty sure Indiana takes care of the bridges that take KY 69 (Hawesville) and KY 79 (Brandenburg) across the river. Indiana also maintains the Sherman Minton Bridge (I-64) and it was Indiana that initiated the closure last year for emergency repairs.

Ohio replaced the US 23 bridge at Portsmouth and is also building the new Ironton-Russell bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 12, 2014, 02:45:11 PM
If Indiana helps pay maintenance costs on the US 41 bridge, then Kentucky should give Indiana all of the land north of the Ohio River.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Bill C on January 12, 2014, 07:42:15 PM
If Indiana helps pay maintenance costs on the US 41 bridge, then Kentucky should give Indiana all of the land north of the Ohio River.


States don't give up land and the river will change course again.  What is north was once south.  Time and rivers wait for no man but the State remains intact as designated and litigated.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Buck87 on January 12, 2014, 11:17:26 PM
States don't give up land

Especially land with a horse track on it
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on January 13, 2014, 01:03:13 PM
States don't give up land

Especially land with a horse track on it

Exactly!! I don't have a problem with Indiana splitting the cost. There are a lot more Hoosiers in the E'ville metro who this impacts that Kentuckians.

I also don't have a problem with the US 41 bridges being a temporary fix for 69, but a new bridge is needed. E'ville-Henderson is the largest metro on both the Ohio and Mississippi with a single crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 13, 2014, 05:42:13 PM
I sent the Transportation Cabinet a request for information on Indiana's contribution to the maintenance and construction costs of the US-41 bridges. I'll report back when I get a response.
I got a quick response from David Steele, Branch Manager for Bridge Preservation, Division of Maintenance:
Quote
The State of Indiana contributes 50% of the maintenance costs on the two Ohio River Bridges near Henderson, Kentucky. Kentucky contributes the other 50% of the maintenance costs.

The northbound Ohio River bridge was built as a toll bridge by Indiana with Kentucky participating in one-half the construction costs.

Indiana, Kentucky, and the Federal Highway Administration participated in the cost of the construction of the southbound bridge and approaches.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on January 15, 2014, 12:40:12 AM
Keith Todd, Public Information Officer, KYTC, Department of Highways, Districts One & Two, in response to my email about the US 41 bridges, sent a copy of the press release issued on the 75th birthday of the northbound bridge in 2007:
Quote
U.S. 41 Twin Bridges Northbound Structure Celebrates

75 Years of Service to Travelers

Original Bridge Officially Opened to Traffic in 1932


Henderson, KY. (June 28, 2007) -  When Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Engineers developed plans to run three lanes of traffic on what is normally a two lane bridge, some Henderson-Evansville area commuters thought that a bit unusual.  However, a check of area newspapers from 1932 shows that the original bridge carried three lanes of traffic when it first opened that year.

            According to Chief District Engineer Ted Merryman, traffic was pretty much gridlocked around the bridge the first two days it was open 75 years ago.

“When the first bridge (now carrying northbound traffic) was officially opened to traffic with a three day celebration centered on July 4th, 1932, traffic was gridlocked around the bridge as an estimated 50,000 vehicles try to cross the structure in the first two days,”  Merryman said.

                The three day celebration was centered on July 4th, making July 4th 2007 the bridge’s 75th birthday.

                “Few of us can fully comprehend what a true marvel of engineering the first structure must have appeared to be 75 years ago,”  Merryman observed.  “The three day celebration mounted by both Henderson and Evansville was fully fitting the structure that has connected Western Kentucky and Southern Indiana economically and socially since.”

To officially open the bridge to traffic, Governor Ruby Lafoon of Kentucky and Governor Harry G. Leslie of Indiana walked from each end of the span to meet in the middle to shake hands.  A boat flotilla gathered from up and down the Ohio River took nearly 40 minutes to pass beneath the bridge.  About two-dozen army planes put on an air show with maneuvers above Dade Park (now Ellis Park) Race Track.   A parade that stretched nearly two miles long celebrating the history of transportation lasted nearly two hours.

                Gayle Alvis with the Kentucky State Library Archives assisted Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Public Information Officer Keith Todd in digging through microfilm files filled with the history of the original bridge.

                “One of the first Henderson Gleaner articles we found described the celebration as, ”˜One of the most elaborate celebrations of its kind ever to be staged in the Middle West,’”  Alvis said.  “It was estimated that the celebration attracted 100,000 visitors to Henderson.”

                Military cannons were fired from the riverbanks joining with the din of riverboat whistles during the celebration.

                Todd says the cost and magnitude of the bridge building program that included the first U.S. 41 Ohio River Bridge created quite a building boom across Kentucky.

                “The first of the U.S. 41 Twin bridges was built for $2.4 million.  It was one of 11 new bridges built statewide at about the same time for just under $10 million,”  Todd said.  “That building boom included the U.S. 60 Green River Bridge at Spottsville that had opened just a few months earlier, as well as other major bridges along the U.S. 60 Corridor.  It was an amazing time of growth and economic expansion across Kentucky and it all came down to improving transportation.”

                Bridge bonds issued to pay for the construction effort were paid off with tolls.  Crossing between Henderson and Evansville required a 30 cent toll for passenger vehicles.  It was five cents for pedestrians who strolled across a sidewalk on the bridge deck.  A toll card for the bridge listed a 5 cent per head charge for “livestock on foot.”

                Ruby Lafoon called the new U.S. 41 highway, “…one of the most important in the nation and the most important traversing Kentucky from North to South.”

                In December 1966 a second bridge was opened to handle southbound traffic with the original bridge handling only northbound traffic as it does today.

The U.S. 41 Twin Bridges, also known as the Bi-State Gold Star Vietnam War Memorial Bridges, carry approximately 40,000 vehicles a day across the Ohio River between Henderson, Kentucky, and Evansville, Indiana.

-30-

Mr Todd also sent along text below, from clippings compiled by Frank Boyett with the Henderson Gleaner.  Mr. Todd said that Mr. Boyette has also done several articles on the Twins that should be available on the Gleaner Website. (Emphasis added below is mine.)
Quote
U.S. 41 Twin Bridges History Notes
From the Opening of the Original Bridge in 1932

Compiled from microfilm archives of the Henderson Gleaner, the Evansville Courier-Press and the Louisville Courier Journal.
  • Opening day the trip from Evansville to Henderson took about two hours.  Traffic was packed solid, both ways.  The distance from the Henderson city limits to the bridge proper was 4 miles. From courthouse to courthouse it is 10.2 miles.
  • Cost of the original bridge was $2.4 million with the federal government paying half, Kentucky paying 1/4th and Indiana paying 1/4th.
  • Both Evansville and Henderson are decorated in bunting and flags, principal streets are lighted with vari-colored electric lights and a general spirit of carnival prevails.
  • Dean William S. Taylor of the University of Kentucky was keynote speaker for a celebration at Bosse Field in Evansville.  Among his observations he said, “Man today is a bridge builder and probably will ever be.  This magnificent structure of engineering genius is not only a gateway between our two states for trading, traveling and the more intimate mingling of people; it is a symbol of the linking together, of the blending into one of the North and the South.  It is a symbol of the oneness of our citizens, who today have the same ideals, the same standards, and the same aspirations.”
  • Army planes flying overhead scattered rose petals over the crowed gathered on the bridge for the dedication.
  • It is estimated that 50,000 automobiles carrying some 200,000 persons crossed the bridge Sunday and Monday.  There were four lanes of traffic on the approaches and three on the bridge and so thick was it that it was creeping along most of the time.
  • A squadron of 22 airplanes led by Jimmy Doolittle zoomed over the river.
  • S.I. Will, a local merchant was credited as being the first southbound traveler to pay the first toll.  George J. Lucas of the Lucas & Wooten Poultry firm of Henderson drove the first northbound car to pay a toll.  At the start of toll charges, 267 vehicles crossed in the first hour, 166 southbound and 101 northbound.
  • The Dixie Bee Ferry at Henderson and the Dade Park Ferry near the bridge were purchased by the Kentucky Highway Commission and continued operating for a time after the bridge was completed.
  • Tolls on the original bridges were removed or “freed”  on March 20, 1941, making travel between the two cities more economical and encouraging new commerce.
  • The second of the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges was opened to traffic on December 16, 1966 at a cost of $5 million, further enhancing this historic connection between Henderson and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 22, 2014, 12:08:53 PM
did they ever explore the possibility of buying and leveling some businesses on the US 41 commercial strip in Henderson and building the freeway there with a frontage road for the remaining ones?

Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:

http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx

In an email, he cautions that, as time has passed, it is now basically an artifact of history:

Quote
Please be advised that a final environmental assessment was never approved by the Federal Highway Administration due to the inability of the Henderson-Evansville MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan being able to demonstrate fiscal constraint with this project included.  Given the inability to pay for the alternatives under consideration at that point in time and due to the passage of time, all work prepared really just becomes background or reference information for a new process that would be required should there become a means to fund this undertaking.

With that in mind, the DEIS does contain some good information about the alternatives that would have incorporated US 41.
Title: US 41 Bridge Replacement Instead of I-69 Bridge?
Post by: Grzrd on January 23, 2014, 05:23:00 PM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)

(http://i.imgur.com/BnoPeJA.png)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 24, 2014, 02:36:08 PM
Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)

The 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Henderson to Evansville crossing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Documents/I69%20DEIS.pdf) discusses the disadvantages to Corridors F and G (both of which would have utilized the current bridges and studies of both which were discontinued at an early stage) (pages 63-64/470 of pdf). For example, in regard to Corridor F:

Quote
This corridor did not meet all performance measures of the Purpose and Need Statement, since it did not provide an additional river crossing to US 41. It would have been difficult to construct while keeping it open to traffic and would likely have had adverse impacts on businesses along the corridor during construction.

Sounds like a US 41 bridge rebuild occurring before construction of an I-69 bridge would present severe traffic challenges and economic challenges for businesses along the corridor (of course, a bridge rebuild alone would have less of an impact than an interstate rebuild along the corridor).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 24, 2014, 11:13:40 PM
My guess is that if a new US 41 bridge is built then I-69 will travel with US 41 across the Ohio River and the new I-69 Bridge will never be built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 25, 2014, 01:38:14 AM
My guess is that if a new US 41 bridge is built then I-69 will travel with US 41 across the Ohio River and the new I-69 Bridge will never be built.

I agree, is it really necessary for another bridge when you weigh in the costs?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on January 25, 2014, 03:56:09 AM
IMO the ideal solution would be to build the I-69 bridge and then replace the US 41 bridges as needed; they could probably get away with just the existing southbound bridge until it becomes structurally deficient once the I-69 bridge is in place.

Nexus 7

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on January 26, 2014, 11:06:08 PM
IMO the ideal solution would be to build the I-69 bridge and then replace the US 41 bridges as needed; they could probably get away with just the existing southbound bridge until it becomes structurally deficient once the I-69 bridge is in place.

Nexus 7

I agree. The problem with building a new US 41 bridge and then routing I-69 over it is that is still leaves the metropolitan area with a single crossing between them. If a new I-69 bridge is built, then I can see where it could make sense for US 41 to go down to a single span. Less traffic will be using US 41 and a single span crossing would still allow for a second crossing over the river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 27, 2014, 01:39:40 AM
IMO the ideal solution would be to build the I-69 bridge and then replace the US 41 bridges as needed; they could probably get away with just the existing southbound bridge until it becomes structurally deficient once the I-69 bridge is in place.

Nexus 7

I agree. The problem with building a new US 41 bridge and then routing I-69 over it is that is still leaves the metropolitan area with a single crossing between them. If a new I-69 bridge is built, then I can see where it could make sense for US 41 to go down to a single span. Less traffic will be using US 41 and a single span crossing would still allow for a second crossing over the river.

I'm with Cap on this one. If I'm not mistaken, Evansville is the largest metro area on the Ohio with just one crossing (and yes, I consider the 41 bridges as one). There are times, seemingly more now than in years past, when that's not a good thing. Sometime or another, there will have to be a second crossing. I think people will howl for a bit if it's tolled, but if that's the only way we get one, then so be it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 28, 2014, 04:37:40 PM
Yes Evansville is the largest. Maybe Owensboro should get a second bridge too. Wouldn't Owensboro then be the largest metro area on the Ohio without 2 bridges? Do you see where this is going? A cycle will start with cities saying, "We're the largest with only crossing."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on January 28, 2014, 04:41:45 PM
Owensboro has two bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 28, 2014, 04:53:37 PM
Soft of, kind of, but not really. The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on January 28, 2014, 07:28:30 PM
Still closer than 25 miles.  Plus Evansville is 2-3 times larger than Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on January 28, 2014, 08:42:45 PM
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however. There would be no reason to build a four-lane cable-suspended bridge if there weren't a major city nearby. Personally, I'd leave the US 41 bridges alone (rebuild them perhaps, or something like that) and build the I-69 bridge upstream a mile or so. The US 41 bridges could be used for the local traffic from Henderson to Evansville, I'd imagine that a lot of the traffic that bridge receives now is for that purpose while the I-69 bridge can serve regional traffic passing through. In a way, that's exactly what the Owensboro bridges do, with US 231 and the Natcher serving as a regional route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 06, 2014, 08:00:51 PM
The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 06, 2014, 08:25:18 PM
The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?

Don't like this idea, he only wants the road to go through his city because he is the mayor, he makes up an excuse with the so called money saved.  this idea will not happen, they have already started, and in many cases finished the highway, it is going near eville and henderson whether he likes it or not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 06, 2014, 09:24:19 PM
And where is I-69 supposed to go north of the Natcher Bridge. Do we have to reroute it it all the way up to Washington? Crane? Do we just renumber all of I-69 in Southern Indiana? Especially considering the fact that I-164 is getting a new number. This city has a fetish for interstates apparently, and not just any interstate but a 2-di interstate, 3-dis apparently won't do. But I agree: it won't happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 06, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Great idea. Now that Kentucky is already committed to spending millions of dollars to upgrade the Pennyrile and the WK/Pennyrile interchange, let's extend I-69 east along the WK (requiring spending even more money to upgrade that portion of the WK), upgrade the WK/Natcher interchange, upgrade the Natcher, convert US 231 to a full freeway on both sides of the river, then run I-69 west along I-64 to meet up with existing I-69.

The only people who are going to use that route are ones who are trying to clinch I-69. All other through I-69 traffic is going to use the Pennyrile and put up with the commercial stretch on US 41 south of the existing bridges, and traffic going to Owensboro is either going to use the Pennyrile and Audubon parkways, or US 431 from the WK (which is signed for Owensboro on an auxiliary exit sign).

Seriously, this is one of the goofier ideas I've heard.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 06, 2014, 10:25:13 PM

The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?

Save a billion dollars?  The route only makes sense if...

No, I'm not going to argue with nonsense.

The Evansville media is always full of silly bits about wanting to be the next Owensboro (in other words, develop its waterfront).  This is because Evansville has a pretty forlorn and under-exploited riverfront.  Beyond that, Owensboro really has very little on Evansville.  Nonsense pronouncements like this give voters in Owensboro something to feel good about, and reason to vote for the guy who said it. 

I don't dislike Owensboro (who could hate the home of Bill Monroe?).  If I was an Owensboroan and saw that Henderson (Henderson!) was the one getting the mainline, I'd be annoyed, too.  But this is just empty boosterism. 

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 07, 2014, 03:11:52 AM
Our mayor has done a lot of good for the city.  He's had some really good ideas.  This ain't one of 'em.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on February 07, 2014, 12:31:22 PM
This would be a world class "bait and switch".  Build the Evansville-Bloomington leg, then change to pick up Jasper and Owensboro.

To make it work, they would have to build new terrain from Dale (US 231/I-64) to somewhere between Crane and Washington. Or crazier still, they could go all the way back to the early days of planning and divert I-69 to Bedford, IN.

I don't see it happening.




Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 07, 2014, 01:39:44 PM
Owensboro...Hmm. Moonlight Barbeque   :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 07, 2014, 02:08:10 PM
There's a different BBQ joint that the locals prefer over Moonlite that might make a good place to eat if someone in the Owensboro area wants to host a meet to look at the US 60 construction.

There was a fire at Moonlite not too long ago but I don't think it was destroyed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 07, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
There's a different BBQ joint that the locals prefer over Moonlite that might make a good place to eat if someone in the Owensboro area wants to host a meet to look at the US 60 construction.

There was a fire at Moonlite not too long ago but I don't think it was destroyed.

Times have changed since I lived there in '86-87
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 09, 2014, 12:47:07 PM

Quote
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said.

While the folks from Louisville and Lexington try to get their breath from laughing so hard, Bowling Green, now the states 3rd largest city, would like to address the crowd.

I have nothing against Owensboro, but this is borderline insanity. What's next, Hopkinsville demanding that 69 continue down the Pennyrile and then back up 24 over the lakes? At least there wouldn't be any new terrain construction and not any more out of the way than Madisonville-Beaver Dam-Owensboro-Dale back to 69 route.

If Owensboro wanted to be near a mainline 2di, they should have worked to bring 64 farther south in the early 60's.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 09, 2014, 06:25:44 PM
I would aver that at this point, it is more reasonable to move Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 09, 2014, 06:52:39 PM
Mayor Payne, why don't you have the Army Corps of Engineers come to your fair city and cut it loose from the rest of Kentucky? You can let it float down the river, until you get to the confluence of the Green River. Throw down your anchor at that point, 'cause that's where I-69 is coming through.

You're welcome.

He makes me ashamed to admit that I'm related to Paynes, though most of them have to good sense to spell it Paine, like the patriot Thomas Paine.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on February 09, 2014, 06:55:32 PM
If Owensboro wanted to be near a mainline 2di, they should have worked to bring 64 farther south in the early 60's.

It would be much easier to just upgarde and sign the Audubon and Natcher Parkways as an even I-5x.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 09, 2014, 06:59:08 PM
He can move his hopes to i-67 going through his city, but that highway will never be built
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: english si on February 10, 2014, 09:03:24 AM
It would be much easier to just upgarde and sign the Audubon and Natcher Parkways as an even I-5x.
I-58: Lexington - Elizabethtown - Owensboro - Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 10, 2014, 05:04:19 PM
The 2nd bridge you speak of is a good 11 miles away from Owensboro.
The bridge is there FOR Owensboro however.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/developing_news/article_f0f5e933-59a3-5166-8055-7ae0e3452e0e.html?success=1?success=2) reports that Owensboro's mayor apparently wants the William Natcher/US 231 Bridge (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Owensboro,+KY&hl=en&ll=37.848833,-87.041931&spn=0.220403,0.308647&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.849851,79.013672&oq=owensboro+ky&t=h&hnear=Owensboro,+Daviess,+Kentucky&z=12) to become the I-69 Bridge:

Quote
Delivering his annual State of the City address Thursday, Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne called for changing the route of the proposed Interstate 69 that would bring it through Owensboro and eliminate the need to build a new $1 billion bridge across the Ohio River near Henderson.
Payne's proposal to reroute I-69 through Owensboro instead of a Evansville-Henderson corridor makes use of the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, the former U.S. 60 bypass and the Natcher and Western Kentucky parkways.
"Work needs to continue to bring an interstate to the most progressive city in the commonwealth," Payne said. "I-69 should be revisited. A billion dollars or more can be saved by coming an additional 30 miles down the Western Kentucky Parkway and moving north on the Natcher Parkway, saving the need to construct an additional bridge over the Ohio River. This needs to be seriously looked at. Somebody need to explain to me why this should not be done."

Any takers for providing the explanation?

Owensboro might get an I-67 from Washington, IN to Bowling Green, KY. No chance on getting I-69. I think US 31 north of Indy may become I-67 as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 10, 2014, 08:15:38 PM
It would be much easier to just upgarde and sign the Audubon and Natcher Parkways as an even I-5x.
I-58: Lexington - Elizabethtown - Owensboro - Henderson.

So basically we would have a 2nd interstate route linking Lexington with Evansville-Henderson. While it does seem ridiculous to have a 2nd route just so Owensboro can be on a mainline 2-di, I did drive that back from Lexington a couple of times when the New Albany 64 bridge was closed and it was close to rush hour in Louisville.

67 all the way to Washington seems silly, but if it is that important for Owensboro, then maybe route 67 from Bowling Green to Henderson. No new terrain construction and it's not duplicating an existing route. It could be sold as an access route for Bowling Green to points west such as St. Louis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 10, 2014, 08:48:16 PM

So basically we would have a 2nd interstate route linking Lexington with Evansville-Henderson. While it does seem ridiculous to have a 2nd route just so Owensboro can be on a mainline 2-di, I did drive that back from Lexington a couple of times when the New Albany 64 bridge was closed and it was close to rush hour in Louisville.

Last time I went to (through) Owensboro, I did 64-265-841-60. There's a bit of a slowdown along the 31W portion, but I wonder if that couldn't be skirted by taking I-65 south to KY 313 over to US 31W?

West of US 31W, US 60 moves fairly well despite the 55 mph speed limit and there are only a handful of traffic lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 11, 2014, 01:03:06 PM
THe I-67 route was proposed by some southern Indiana towns as well. It's goal was to make a second route / bypass around Louisville from Indy-Nashville. I sort of doubt I-67 will ever happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 12, 2014, 03:30:41 AM
I wish they'd just drop the whole idea of moving I-69, or building I-67 ... whatever. It's not happening, not in this lifetime.

What they MIGHT be able to pull off, and it would cost literally a few thousand dollars versus millions, is this:
* Re-assign U.S. 60 to Kentucky 425, the Pennyrile Pkwy. between exits 76 & 77, and the Audubon Parkway
* Do the same with U.S. 231 on the Natcher Parkway.

Both 60 and 231 are well-known roads that span significant distances (60 is over 2600 miles long and 231 is over 900), and while they don't have the supposed "cachet" of a red-white-and-blue shield, I dare say this would make good sense.  Anyone can find them on a map.

And the cost would be mere pocket change.  They could even keep the 60 and 231 designations on the old roads as "Alternate" or "Business" routes as the case may be, or redesignate them as state highways.

UPDATE, 5:50 a.m. WEDNESDAY: My curiosity finally got the better of me as to the difference in distance from I-69 & I-64 to the cloverleaf of the WK & Pennyrile between the accepted route of I-69 as it will be until the bridge is built (I-164 - U.S. 41 - Pennyrile) and Ron Payne's way (I-64 - U.S. 231 - U.S. 60 - Natcher - WK), and it adds up to 77 miles versus 135.  I cannot for the life of me even fathom why the man even thinks this is a remotely valid option.  Deep down, I gotta believe people would pay a toll to cross a bridge to keep from having to drive 58 miles out of the way.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 12, 2014, 09:31:59 AM
The plan is still to convert the Audubon to a 3di of 69, correct?

I understand Evansville has more growth north, towards I-64, but a 3-di Audubon is about the same distance as I-164 is. It is also about the same distance as I-565 to Huntsville. Both cities are considerably larger than Owensboro, and it seems to serve them well. Columbus, GA also comes to mind.

With 69 running along the east of Evansville-Henderson, it actually may be a little shorter than I-164. Regardless, it will connect Owensboro sufficiently to the grid. Once the bridge is completed, it will also provide quicker access between Owensboro and Evansville. Maybe that is what Payne is concerned about.

As someone who has lived in this area most of my life, I have never understood the political divisiveness that exists between Owensboro, Evansville and even Henderson to a lesser extent. It almost seems competitive, especially from the Owensboro viewpoint. If the three communities would work and PLAN together for a common good, I think all three would benefit. For example, would we get better air service if an Evansville-Owensboro Int'l was built near where 69 and the Audubon-3di would intersect in Henderson County? The Tri-Cities in TN, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill and Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point are all examples of how progressive a 3-city region can be if there is joint cooperation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2014, 12:26:10 PM
As I was saying, with even very loose ties to that area, I hear it.  There's a lot of "Why aren't we doing X?  Owensboro's doing it."  Evansville-Henderson is a significantly larger MSA and is not really what I'd call threatened by Owensboro.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 14, 2014, 09:31:01 PM
Moving I-69 ain't gonna happen. This quote is from KYTC Secretary Mike Hancock:

Quote
“The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does not plan to reroute Interstate 69 through Owensboro.  Deviating from the congressionally designated Interstate 69 corridor would prove costly and be difficult to implement.  The routes suggested through Owensboro are not compliant with federal interstate standards, nor is it the most direct and efficient route for motorists. We appreciate Mayor Payne’s input on the project, but the Cabinet will continue on the course that has been set.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 15, 2014, 01:01:51 AM
Ron Payne is really serious about this nonsense. He was in Frankfort earlier in the week, and went to the Evansville Mayor's office yesterday, bringing along flyers made with a line through a red circle over Evansville-Henderson.

http://www.planning.org/news/daily/story/?story_id=195482953

http://www.courierpress.com/photos/galleries/2014/feb/13/evansville-owensboro-mayors-meet-discuss-i-69/?partner=popular

I thought he was wanting the route to follow 64 to Dale, and then upgrade 231. Instead, he is wanting a new road from Washington. I don't see how new terrain construction from Washington to Dale, along with improving 231 from Dale to Owensboro can save a billion dollars versus a new bridge. Does this clown not realize the road is already built to Evansville?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tvketchum on February 15, 2014, 09:39:20 AM
The good mayor should have been beating this drum years ago, before the investment Indiana made in "cementing" the current route.....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2014, 10:16:51 AM
Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 15, 2014, 10:27:07 AM
The good mayor should have been beating this drum years ago, before the investment Indiana made in "cementing" the current route.....

I just don't see Indiana ever agreeing to a route via Owensboro.  It just does not serve what Indiana needs, and that was a route between Indy and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 15, 2014, 11:14:10 AM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on February 15, 2014, 06:51:48 PM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.

He doesn't care how he looks to anyone but Owensboro voters. He's "fighting for them" (and reelection of course).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 15, 2014, 06:53:02 PM
Why is this guy even attempting to get I-69? Like I said, personally I feel I-69 is a huge waste of money. If a better route was needed then US 50 could've been 4 laned from Bedford-Washington. Bypasses could've even been built around Loogotee and Shoals for all I care. IMO there was already a good route from Indy-Evansville via Terre Haute. SR 641 would've helped that traffic a lot. The current route from Canada to Mexico is also shorter than the one I-69 will take them on. There is also a good route from Indy-Memphis already.
My point is that more money doesn't need to be wasted on this project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 15, 2014, 07:31:01 PM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.
Mayor Payne has been up in Toronto, partying with Rob Ford, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 15, 2014, 09:00:00 PM

Quote
Henderson County Judge-Executive Hugh McCormick said Payne was "very aggressively" pushing for a dramatic I-69 route change on Tuesday in Frankfort, during a social event for local government officials and Kentucky legislators.

He was probably drunk.  :D

Eventually he's going to have realize that after a certain point this mostly just makes Owensboro look bad.
Mayor Payne has been up in Toronto, partying with Rob Ford, I'm afraid.

haha smoking that crack pipe in all seriousness though, why didn't this guy mention this when it actually would have been a possibility, before they built what is there now?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2014, 09:29:09 PM
haha smoking that crack pipe in all seriousness though, why didn't this guy mention this when it actually would have been a possibility, before they built what is there now?

Probably wouldn't have done any good. Indiana wanted to connect Evansville to Indianapolis. Not Dale to Indy.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 15, 2014, 09:32:17 PM
I kind of find it funny that three posts up, the guy from Terre Haute (along with that town I believe) wants/wanted I-69 to travel through their community, and the mayor of Owensboro wants I-69 to run through his town, and instead it is Bloomington, the one community in Indiana that does not want the interstate (though many there actually are okay with it) that gets I-69.

And don't worry, I'm not 100% on board of the financial justifications for the project or the new bridge, but I look at a state map and know that one quarter of the state wasn't really covered with an interstate and that's what this project covered. On that note, I'm sure Indianapolis gives less than a crap about Owensboro, so there goes your new-terrain highway from Dale to Washington. Jasper and Huntingburg bypasses however....
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 15, 2014, 10:58:45 PM
Jasper and Huntingburg bypasses however....

Mayor Payne visited the wrong city in Indiana. I'm sure E-ville's mayor dumped those brochures where they belonged, in the round file.

If Payne had visited the mayors of Jasper and Huntingburg, he likely would have found receptive ears to upgrading the hell out of 231. And that would have done Owensboro a lot more good than a bunch of crazy talk about rerouting 69. US 231 will probably never get upgraded to interstate status, but an expressway, at least to Crane, could probably be justified and would sure boost the area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 16, 2014, 09:09:26 AM
http://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=RwCTXQIxPM

I think I-69 should go to Oklahoma. Then no new bridge would be needed at all. The link above shows where I-69 should've went.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on February 16, 2014, 09:48:34 AM
Most of the article is behind a paywall, but Rand Paul says while in a meeting in Owensboro that he'll "look into it" if asked by Ron Payne.

http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_dff35132-3799-5774-8d41-09d2c30bdcde.html

Quote
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said that if Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne asks him to look into the possibility of rerouting Interstate 69 through Owensboro, then he will do it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 16, 2014, 09:54:09 AM
Maybe Owensboro could seek stimulous money from the feds to give to Indiana for the cost of the reroute.  :banghead:

Maybe they could get some more stimulous money so Kentucky can build a new freeway for I-69 from Owensboro to Madisonville.

This is my modest proposal!  :clap:
Title: Rand Paul To Enter I-69 Ohio River Bridge Debate?
Post by: Grzrd on February 16, 2014, 10:03:40 AM
Most of the article is behind a paywall, but Rand Paul says while in a meeting in Owensboro that he'll "look into it" if asked by Ron Payne.
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_dff35132-3799-5774-8d41-09d2c30bdcde.html

Here are parts of the (behind paywall) article (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_dff35132-3799-5774-8d41-09d2c30bdcde.html?success=2) reporting that Rand Paul "will look into it if the mayor asks me":

Quote
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said that if Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne asks him to look into the possibility of rerouting Interstate 69 through Owensboro, then he will do it.
Paul, a Bowling Green Republican, was in Owensboro Saturday night to attend the Bourbon Ball, a fundraiser hosted by Owensboro Rotary Club at the Owensboro Convention Center.
Paul said he had just heard about the I-69 rerouting discussions, including that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Secretary had termed the current route "congressionally designated."
"I'm not aware that anyone has ever asked me where the roads go," Paul said
, "but I will look into it if the mayor asks me. I'm not saying I can do anything, but we can look at it."
Payne has been floating a plan that would reroute I-69 from Washington, Ind., to the William H. Natcher Bridge at Maceo, through Owensboro and toward Bowling Green using the Natcher Parkway.
That path would save about $1 billion since a new bridge would not have to be built over the Ohio River at Evansville, Payne said.
The route now being pursued would extend I-69 south from I-164, east of Ellis Park, across a new bridge to be built and then connecting with the Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson.
Payne talked up his rerouting plan to Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke Friday, and Winnecke did not get on board.
Despite getting rebuffed by both Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock and Winnecke, Payne said he will continue to push for officials to give the option a review. And he is continuing to push to see a study that examines the Natcher and Audubon parkways as well as the former U.S. 60 Bypass to determine what it would take to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Owensboro and Daviess County officials also have been part of a multistate movement to create a new Interstate 67 that would connect to I-69 at Washington, Ind., and then on to the Natcher bridge, following U.S. 60 into Owensboro and on to Bowling Green via the Natcher parkway and connecting to I-65.
Payne told the Messenger-Inquirer Friday that he would take either one, but he thinks I-69 is the best bet. He said Evansville officials will not support proceeding with I-67 until I-69 is built.

It simply sounds like Paul is unfamiliar with Congressionally designated corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 16, 2014, 11:41:54 AM
This all just proves my point about how anal FHWA is about Interstate standards.

The average motorist is not going to know the difference between an Interstate and one of the Kentucky parkways. Even if the medians aren't as wide on the Audubon or Natcher as they are on I-24, the Kentucky parkways are still a lot more modern than I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, Pa.

Eliminate the old toll plaza cloverleafs, stick I-xxx signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 16, 2014, 04:41:49 PM
This all just proves my point about how anal FHWA is about Interstate standards.

The average motorist is not going to know the difference between an Interstate and one of the Kentucky parkways. Even if the medians aren't as wide on the Audubon or Natcher as they are on I-24, the Kentucky parkways are still a lot more modern than I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, Pa.

Eliminate the old toll plaza cloverleafs, stick I-xxx signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.

I do have a stupid question, why did Kentucky build toll plazas that way?  Illinois has a similar system, toll plazas every so often, but all of them are on the mainline away from exits, not under bridges.  Even the two plazas (now moved) on I-88 west of Aurora in the middle of the interchanges were not set up under bridges with cloverleafs.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 16, 2014, 06:40:17 PM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rover_0 on February 16, 2014, 07:09:55 PM
This all just proves my point about how anal FHWA is about Interstate standards.

The average motorist is not going to know the difference between an Interstate and one of the Kentucky parkways. Even if the medians aren't as wide on the Audubon or Natcher as they are on I-24, the Kentucky parkways are still a lot more modern than I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, Pa.

Eliminate the old toll plaza cloverleafs, stick I-xxx signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.

It's more of a fictional thread idea, but I've thought for a while now that there should be a secondary tier to the Interstate system with looser standards. Substandard expressways, super-2s, and non-freeway-to-freeway interchanges could be part of this system.

I'll plan on a fictional thread for this very thing.

</tangent>
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2014, 07:14:53 PM
It's more of a fictional thread idea, but I've thought for a while now that there should be a secondary tier to the Interstate system with looser standards. Substandard expressways, super-2s, and non-freeway-to-freeway interchanges could be part of this system.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4397
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 16, 2014, 10:02:27 PM

I do have a stupid question, why did Kentucky build toll plazas that way?  Illinois has a similar system, toll plazas every so often, but all of them are on the mainline away from exits, not under bridges.  Even the two plazas (now moved) on I-88 west of Aurora in the middle of the interchanges were not set up under bridges with cloverleafs.

Kentucky charged different rates for entering/exiting the toll road vs. going straight through. For instance, the old toll booth at the KY 11 exit of the Mountain Parkway (in this case, the toll plaza was built on top of the bridge, not under it) charged 50 cents for through traffic and 25 cents for entering and exiting. There were some toll plazas on the mainline that only levied through tolls.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 18, 2014, 10:08:31 AM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 18, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.

The picture in the Evansville Courier appears to confirm what you are saying about the meeting. Payne looked like he was crawling away from a vicious beatdown.

This is getting quite facsinating for me. I can't recall a time where a mayor actually went to this kind of length to get a highway, which is nearly complete, re-routed out of the way to benefit him solely. What in his mind could make him even think that Indiana would give an ounce of consideration to building 40-50 miles of new terrain interstate, to replace one they just completed, so Owenboro is on 69 instead of Evansville? His antics are entertaining, but I am afraid they could have serious consequences for Owensboro down the road politically. Alienating Evansville, Henderson, Madisonville and Bowling Green could prove disasterous in this era of regional cooperation.

There is alot of commerce between Owensboro and Evansvillle-Henderson. My bet on the next move is that an Owensboro business leader will publicly call Payne out on this. Meawhile, get some more popcorn.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 18, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.

The previous comments made a good point.  they are already building a spur interstate to his city, why does he need another one?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 18, 2014, 05:36:14 PM
As I hear more about Mayor Payne, I get more and more convinced that he is a refugee from Alanland. :spin:

Update on this situation: I learned yesterday that the study that the mayor wants a copy of is not yet finished. It's still in progress. It's hard to give someone something that doesn't exist.

I also heard that reporters who were outside when Payne went to see Evansville's mayor reported a lot of shouting and loud voices behind the closed door. They couldn't hear what was said, but they said the discussion got pretty heated. Also heard that Payne has acted like, for lack of a better term, a total asshole over this whole deal and has destroyed any goodwill between Owensboro and Henderson and Evansville. Not only that, but he managed to offend and anger Bowling Green with some of his rants.

The previous comments made a good point.  they are already building a spur interstate to his city, why does he need another one?
Well, maybe they won't be now!  I personally wouldn't cancel the interstate over this silliness, but it would be fitting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 18, 2014, 06:50:15 PM
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 18, 2014, 08:50:57 PM
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.

Why isn't the current US 231 good enough?  It's 4 lanes divided and has no traffic lights! Well there's one at US 60. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 18, 2014, 10:02:43 PM
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.

Why isn't the current US 231 good enough?  It's 4 lanes divided and has no traffic lights! Well there's one at US 60. 

That was my point - the current highways (US 231 and the Natcher) from I-64 to I-65 are good enough. Why is it necessary to conflate the Interstate designation with a freeway?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 18, 2014, 10:05:42 PM
I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but apparently Ron Payne has "called for a solution that works for all involved."

Never negotiate with someone asking you to help them find a compromise between fantasy and reality.

 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 18, 2014, 10:12:04 PM
 
I think the Owensboro mayor's plan for I-69 is nonsense, but I do believe this is good example of an instance where a non-freeway Interstate would be a great thing. How many unnecessary billions of dollars have been spent chasing a red, white and blue shield when a less expensive highway would have been more than adequate? I-69 makes no sense, but an expressway I-67 up to I-64 might.

Why isn't the current US 231 good enough?  It's 4 lanes divided and has no traffic lights! Well there's one at US 60.

Exactly!! He is getting a 20 mile, 3-di spur right into his city. That is more than sufficient for a town of 50K. Evansville has lived with a 20 mile, 3-di spur and it's primary north-south highway being a grade level highway with numerous stoplights for many years. Not to mention, the traffic counts on US 41 are considerably higher than anything that will ever be on US 231 in Southern Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 18, 2014, 10:16:35 PM
I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but apparently Ron Payne has "called for a solution that works for all involved."

Never negotiate with someone asking you to help them find a compromise between fantasy and reality.


I am thinking of betting house money he comes up with a 69-E and 69-W.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 19, 2014, 12:14:46 PM
Needs an I-69C.  And maybe an I-69CE and an I-69CW too.  Of course, I-69C would be I-69CC there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 12:38:57 PM
Needs an I-69C.  And maybe an I-69CE and an I-69CW too.  Of course, I-69C would be I-69CC there.

How about an I-69F for Owensboro?  You guys can take a wild guess what the F stands for.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 19, 2014, 03:39:52 PM
I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but apparently Ron Payne has "called for a solution that works for all involved."
Never negotiate with someone asking you to help them find a compromise between fantasy and reality.

A free, condensed version of the paywall article (http://surfky.com/index.php/news/local/daviess/45003-ron-payne-i-69-should-go-through-owensboro) reports that there is at least one true believer in Mayor Payne:

Quote
At least one city commissioner is backing him. Immediately following his comments, Commissioner Deborah Nunley called Payne a “fearless leader” and compared him to “a dog with a bone he’s not gonna let go of.”  She called on the public to support the mayor in his efforts to get the interstate route changed.

No confirmation whether DeNiro will reprise his role (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZxUhCE5l8) in the movie about Mayor Payne.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 19, 2014, 08:15:47 PM
 “It is time we had an interstate in this community.”  -Payne
You already do! It's called i-369!!!

"I think there is a solution that can benefit all communities,”  Payne said. “We have an alternative.”
Yes it's called I-369!

It’s time that we get an interstate through the city of Owensboro,”  he said. “I’m going to continue to push this unless this commission tells me not to.”

You already do, and the commission already essentially told you to stop talking about it.

ugh this guy is crazy!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 19, 2014, 08:30:38 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro. But sadly, I'm sure this is just 2-di envy. 3-di's (unless it's a bypass of a large city) says that you're good enough for an interstate, but not THAT good enough. Evansville of course for years was served by only a 3-di despite being the third largest city in the state, that of course changes this year. Owensboro, which until recently was the third largest in its state, now gets a 3-di and it's not enough. A 2-di dammit, we are never going to be a major metropolis over 100,000+ unless we have a 2-di! Kentucky I'm sure will just let this die down and Indiana will continue as if they heard nothing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 19, 2014, 08:49:18 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro.
I-69 will almost completely avoid Evansville city limits as well. A Bowling Green-Henderson Interstate would be in Owensboro more than I-69 will be in Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 19, 2014, 08:59:31 PM
Agreed, building new interstates through cities is (mostly) out of style these days.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 19, 2014, 09:38:20 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro.
I-69 will almost completely avoid Evansville city limits as well. A Bowling Green-Henderson Interstate would be in Owensboro more than I-69 will be in Evansville.

Key word is "almost". A part of the I-69/SR 66 interchange is in the city limits. See Google Maps (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Evansville,+IN&hl=en&ll=37.973365,-87.452631&spn=0.038837,0.084543&sll=40.47676,-86.137878&sspn=0.149903,0.338173&oq=evansville&t=h&hnear=Evansville,+Vanderburgh,+Indiana&z=14). Evansville and Vanderburgh County have discussed a merger, but that failed in 2012 when put to a vote, but I believe annexation is definitely being considered.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2014, 10:26:49 PM
So if he's shooting for the moon, and with political standoffs often ended when the winner finally tosses the loser a token graceful way out, what does Payne get out of this in the end?  Is there a calculated acceptable result here that Payne has decided he can live with?  Even bad politicians don't throw everything they have at guaranteed losing battles.  Does he just have nothing left to lose?  Is it just to get people talking about Owensboro?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 20, 2014, 12:21:04 AM
Maybe he's gonna try to take credit for I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 20, 2014, 01:55:22 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro. But sadly, I'm sure this is just 2-di envy. 3-di's (unless it's a bypass of a large city) says that you're good enough for an interstate, but not THAT good enough. Evansville of course for years was served by only a 3-di despite being the third largest city in the state, that of course changes this year. Owensboro, which until recently was the third largest in its state, now gets a 3-di and it's not enough. A 2-di dammit, we are never going to be a major metropolis over 100,000+ unless we have a 2-di! Kentucky I'm sure will just let this die down and Indiana will continue as if they heard nothing.

I've heard it said that KYTC's official response to the mayor was far more polite than many wished it had been. There's sentiment out there for a "FOAD" response.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 20, 2014, 07:31:29 PM
Wait, no interstate is going to go THROUGH Owensboro. But sadly, I'm sure this is just 2-di envy. 3-di's (unless it's a bypass of a large city) says that you're good enough for an interstate, but not THAT good enough. Evansville of course for years was served by only a 3-di despite being the third largest city in the state, that of course changes this year. Owensboro, which until recently was the third largest in its state, now gets a 3-di and it's not enough. A 2-di dammit, we are never going to be a major metropolis over 100,000+ unless we have a 2-di! Kentucky I'm sure will just let this die down and Indiana will continue as if they heard nothing.

I've heard it said that KYTC's official response to the mayor was far more polite than many wished it had been. There's sentiment out there for a "FOAD" response.

That sentiment is building in Owensboro, too.  I talk to anywhere from 50 to 100 people or more every day in my job at Kentucky Wesleyan College, and I've yet to hear from anyone who thinks this is a good idea.  In fact, the last several days' newspapers have drawn quite a crowd as even the college kids think this is funny stuff to follow.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 20, 2014, 11:23:04 PM
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/in-depth-christy-gillenwater-reacts-to-mayor-payne/46970/NluqQ1WLekC6G9MzbAt8Xg


SW Indiana Chamber CEO Christy Gillenwater discussing the antics of Mayor Payne with WEHT's Brad Byrd.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on February 21, 2014, 12:21:08 AM
Thanks for a very interesting clip. It starts out as a roast of Mayor Payne, but it quickly moves on to a serious discussion of the bridges. The Chamber sees the new bridges connecting Evansville and Henderson as inevitable, and I agree. The question is when they will be built. Judging from this clip and other news I've seen upthread, there is a lot of sentiment that it should be done by 2020. That very optimistic goal may not be attainable, but the number of influential forces that are lining up will put a lot of political pressure on getting it done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 21, 2014, 09:23:24 AM
Thanks for a very interesting clip. It starts out as a roast of Mayor Payne, but it quickly moves on to a serious discussion of the bridges. The Chamber sees the new bridges connecting Evansville and Henderson as inevitable, and I agree. The question is when they will be built. Judging from this clip and other news I've seen upthread, there is a lot of sentiment that it should be done by 2020. That very optimistic goal may not be attainable, but the number of influential forces that are lining up will put a lot of political pressure on getting it done.

That's a lot of work to be done in six years, and I can only imagine the amount of environmental work that will need to be done on a major river crossing like this.

The Brent Spence bridge replacement in Cincinnati is a greater need, and Kentucky will be committing to completing a new 50-mile four-lane Mountain Parkway/KY 114 route between Campton and Prestonsburg by 2020, so I really don't see a 2020 completion date for the I-69 bridges as a reasonable possibility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:41:00 AM
OK, folks ... I'm working on this to submit as an op-ed piece here in Owensboro and perhaps elsewhere, if the need arises.  Could any of you critique this to help me out?  I'd GREATLY appreciate it!  --Jacob Newkirk

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

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

But this is just a bad idea.

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

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

It just doesn’t make good sense.

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

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

HUH???

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

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

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

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

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


EDITED 2:11 p.m. CT
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 27, 2014, 06:46:06 AM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn’t even need an Interstate highway.

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

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

I do agree with you on moving US 231 onto the Natcher, but if the Audubon gets I-369, I'd leave US 60 where it is.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 07:24:40 AM
Thanks for the input, guys.  I appreciate it!

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

Quite honestly, I'm probably just venting about this ... but it needed to be put out there, IMHO.  The very idea he's proposing is just foolish. Damned foolish.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 27, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn’t even need an Interstate highway.

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

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

Toyota built a plant in Princeton off of US 41. Companies will build their sites on any major highway. US 41 in Indiana is a major highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on February 27, 2014, 01:10:56 PM
Quote
The thing is, Owensboro really doesn’t even need an Interstate highway.

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

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

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

Quite frankly, not everything needs to be an interstate.  However, moving US-231 to the Green River Parkway (why should I care about Natcher?) and moving US-60 to the Audubon Parkway would be very good ideas.  I could never figure out why Kentucky never moved the US highways to the parkways after the tolls were removed.  The Western Kentucky Parkway and Blue Grass Parkway should be US-62, IMHO, as an example.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 02:03:22 PM
As a former journalist and current PR person, I think you did a really good job.

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

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

Fix the toll booth cloverleaf interchanges, slap some Interstate signs on the Audubon and Natcher, and be done with it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 27, 2014, 03:14:51 PM
Brandon -- I'm in agreement that moving the parallel highways to the parkways just makes sense.  Quite honestly I don't know why it's never been discussed in-depth.  Seems like a no-brainer.

H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

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

With an Interstate designation, you know what you're getting -- a four- (or more) lane limited-access highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 28, 2014, 12:38:17 AM
^^ A good job on the op-ed piece, but, getting an interstate designation does help with industry recruiting. However, I don't know if they take into consideration whether that interstate is a 2di or a 3di. I would argue that the benefits would be the same from getting I-369 designated along the Audubon Parkway than rerouting I-69 or from the I-67 proposal. Huntsville, AL, where I live, is on a 3di as well (I-565), but it reaps the same benefits from an interstate designation than other areas that are along 2di interstates. I haven't heard of any industries not coming to Huntsville due to a lack of interstate access.

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

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

As a regular reader of your old TV blog, the op-ed was well done as I expected. I agree with hb that I would play up the positives of the Audubon 3-di conversion.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 28, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

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

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

A thought I have is that it would be beneficial to have a special designation for US highways that utilize 4 lane, limited-access routes, such as the KY Parkway network. You could call them US Express Routes, same number, but maybe utilize the blue/red colors on a US Shield. The colors of an interstate sign on a US Route sign. This would make perfect sense for US 41 to go over to the Breathitt, US 231 on the Natcher and so on.  For example, it could be referred to as either Express 41 or US 41 Express.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 28, 2014, 12:58:12 AM
More like Ownedboro amirite?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 28, 2014, 11:30:03 AM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

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

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

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

That's a great idea!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 28, 2014, 11:33:26 AM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

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

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

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

That's a great idea!

I'll second that! That is probably one of the best ideas I've heard so far.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 28, 2014, 12:13:01 PM
I've always advocated for blue signs for freeways.  I remember running into the opposite problem during my first trip out to California.  I was on I-5 and running low on gas, so I thought "state route 4 looks important; it should have some services, no?" ... damn, another freeway!

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

that said, I would like arterials not signed as expressways.  traffic lights do not count as quality of service.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 28, 2014, 06:23:58 PM
H.B. -- I also agree with you.  I don't see why highways like the PA Turnpike and your examples are OK, but ours aren't?  It just seems silly.  But, as long as there is that other option - moving 60, 231 and even 62 down to the south, for example - why not go that route and avoid the silliness all together???

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

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

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

And this for Capt. Jack:  Thank you.  I've done a little more tweaking to the post above and hopefully it addresses things a little better.  I will be happy to hear otherwise if more needs to be done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on March 01, 2014, 10:07:12 AM
http://wkyufm.org/post/latest-tug-war-over-i-69-route-pits-owensboro-against-evansville-henderson

Pretty good article about the whole mess.

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

Hancock, in fact, released the following written statement:

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

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

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

Payne says in addition to his letter to governor Beshear, he’s also asked Senators Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Congressman Brett Guthrie to at least take a look at his plan.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy3175 on March 01, 2014, 08:10:49 PM
The problem is, as you know, the inconsistent quality of US highways. Look at US 60, for example. West of Lexington, through Versailles to Frankfort, it's a four-lane route. East of Lexington, through Winchester to Mt. Sterling, it's a two-lane road that declines in quality the farther east you go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My plan would probably save Indiana and Kentucky tons of money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 02, 2014, 03:31:30 PM
This shouldn't even be an argument. Owensboro is never going to get I-69. They are going to get the spur I-369. I-69 is finished from Crane to Evansville. Indiana could care less about Owensboro. The goal of I-69 in Indiana is to connect Indy to Evansville, not Indy to Owensboro. I-67 also will probably never happen. A new bridge across the Ohio River is probably never going to happen either, especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built. An eastern bypass will probably be built around Henderson. Here is my proposal for the whole Ohio River Bridge project.

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

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

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

Why don't they just cosign 41 and 69 over the ohio, then that would save money, do they really need another crossing?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 03:56:23 PM
especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.

???
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on March 02, 2014, 04:47:55 PM
New US 41 bridges have been discussed in some quarters, but they don't solve the issues of redundancy and capacity, unless we're talking adding a third lane in both directions with a breakdown lane to avoid the backups that happen every time there's a wreck on the current bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 02, 2014, 04:57:07 PM
especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.
???
New US 41 bridges have been discussed in some quarters

Also, from upthread regarding KYTC's intermediate plans:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg273448#msg273448
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:00:52 PM
especially since new US 41 bridges are going to be built.

???

Okay, there is a good chance new ones are going to be built. Even if new bridges aren't going to be built, I-69 should still travel with US 41 across the Ohio. What happens if the US 41 bridges aren't replaced and new I-69 bridges are built? Will the US 41 bridges not be replaced, and then eventually be shut down? It would make since, especially since Kentucky and Indiana would be collecting toll money. Then Evansville and Henderson end up with what they had except they have to pay a buck to get across. No one wants that. A cloverleaf exists at US 41 / I-164, so a new interchange would not be needed in Indiana. Let's save money and help the citizens of the Evansville area out by not making things worse. The businesses of the Henderson area would be helped out with my bypass idea as they would still be getting thru traffic from I-69 who wants to stay at a hotel, get gas, or want to stop for a meal. Signs at my northern and southernmost interchanges could tell motorists to go straight for Henderson services. Kentucky could even call the Pennyrile and US 41 in Henderson "Business I-69." 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 07:07:47 PM
They won't shut down the US 41 bridges if a new I-69 bridge is built. A lot of work has just been done on the old Owensboro bridge, even with the existence of the new US 231 bridge, so Kentucky will continue to maintain the US 41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
Still just replacing the US 41 bridges would cost a lot less. IDK if it's going to cost 2.5 million per bridge or if that's total cost. Let's say it is 5 million dollars total. 5 million plus the cost of an eastern Henderson bypass has to be a lot less than a new 1 billion dollar bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on March 02, 2014, 07:24:15 PM
Still just replacing the US 41 bridges would cost a lot less. IDK if it's going to cost 2.5 million per bridge or if that's total cost. Let's say it is 5 million dollars total. 5 million plus the cost of an eastern Henderson bypass has to be a lot less than a new 1 billion dollar bridge.

I can PROMISE you that it will cost a lot more than $2.5 million to replace even one of the Twin Bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:26:24 PM
I'm was just going off of Kentucky's estimates.
Title: Re: US 41 Bridge Replacement Instead of I-69 Bridge?
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 07:27:56 PM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)

(http://i.imgur.com/BnoPeJA.png)

Here was the estimate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on March 02, 2014, 07:32:20 PM
^ $2.5 million just for the EA/EIS, not for any actual construction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 02, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 02, 2014, 08:54:58 PM
^ $2.5 million just for the EA/EIS, not for any actual construction.

Not just for environmental, but for all of the design phase in that biennium. That's probably Phase I design, given it's still four years out.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 03, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 03, 2014, 06:22:54 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: okc1 on March 03, 2014, 09:26:51 PM
I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 03, 2014, 11:58:14 PM

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 04, 2014, 09:09:38 PM

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Then tell me what those interchanges on Wellesley Island are.  Its four lanes, 65 mph speed limit, service signs at interchanges, interstates standards for four miles from the bridge to Canada.  NY does seem to drop the I-81 signs on the bridge itself though... in terms of signage, I-81 nearly has a gap.

The important difference between I-81 and I-69 is that I-81 was part of the original 1950s system.  I-69 was not.  AASHTO and the FHWA do not and will not ever grandfather in an interstate not part of the original system (this is the very definition of grandfathering in something... to include something that was made before the standard was set).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 05, 2014, 01:14:26 AM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.

Ummm...no. If ANY part of a national park is affected by a proposed highway project, it would fall under Section 4(f), and thus be disqualified unless a more feasible route cannot be produced. Plus, a new I-69 bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson would relieve the existing traffic on the US 41 bridges. And, the old bridges, unless seriously upgraded w/ adequate shoulders, cannot be grandfathered into the Interstate system. Why not just go with what has been already approved?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 05, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
It's not a national park it's a state park.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 05, 2014, 09:20:42 AM

I-81 has used the 2-line Thousand Islands Bridge over the south channel of the St Lawrence River in NY.  Of course, the traffic there is not enough to cause a problem.

Plus that's sort of negligibly even I-81 anymore other than simply in name.  It's like the series of glorified ramps that constitute the east end of I-90 before the sign declares it ended well after everyone assumes it already was done. 
Then tell me what those interchanges on Wellesley Island are.  Its four lanes, 65 mph speed limit, service signs at interchanges, interstates standards for four miles from the bridge to Canada.  NY does seem to drop the I-81 signs on the bridge itself though... in terms of signage, I-81 nearly has a gap.

The important difference between I-81 and I-69 is that I-81 was part of the original 1950s system.  I-69 was not.  AASHTO and the FHWA do not and will not ever grandfather in an interstate not part of the original system (this is the very definition of grandfathering in something... to include something that was made before the standard was set).

Sorry, I thought the bridge you were referring to was the one that crosses the border itself.  Serves me right for relying on Google Maps.

I was going to make the same point about retroactively "grandfathering in" something from after the system was begun, but figured there is some hitch in the government's definition of "grandfathering" that is not in line with the rest of the world's, which would not be shocking.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 05, 2014, 05:57:03 PM
I'd still use the current bridges. If new ones are built, they should use the plans from when the bridges were first built.
They don't meet interstate standards, so it's likely I-69 couldn't use them.  You'd have to rebuild the bridges to standard anyways, and then you might as well avoid the park too.  If you're gonna do something, do it right.  "Temporary" solutions to get something in have a tendency to become permanent.

The bridges would be grandfathered in to the interstate highway system. The Kansas Turnpike is not interstate quality, but it was grandfathered into the interstate system. These bridges have been there for a long time and they have worked very well. If semis are allowed to use them and they are each 2 lanes wide, then they should be used for the interstate. Not to mention that there is already a cloverleaf at the US 41 / I-164 interchange. The highway is in good shape to carry an interstate. I know that my proposal runs through the northern edge of a park, but it would not be the first park a major highway runs through.

Edge isn't as big of a deal as right through the middle.

Regardless, this still doesn't address the need for a second crossing between Henderson and Evansville. Last Friday, I was returning from Kentucky on the northbound bridge. The southbound had one lane closed on the southern end of the bridge with a "small" accident or possibly car trouble. The southbound traffic was backed up to Riverside Dr in Evansville, which is about 4 miles from the bridge. This isn't all that uncommon. There are a considerable amount of people who work on one side and live on the other. I am sure that is a pretty helpless feeling if you are stuck in a jam, and have a child to be picked up on the other side, or even worse, have an emergency to deal with.

A metro of 400K+ with a retail service area of nearly a million should have more than one river crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 05, 2014, 06:18:53 PM
Good point.  Didn't think of it that way!

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on March 07, 2014, 11:31:52 AM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 07, 2014, 02:00:25 PM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?

I think the general consensus is no, that it will be Veterans Parkway from that point. You are talking about less than 3 miles that could be designated as an interstate, seems kind of pointless.

There are rumors that INDOT is considering re-routing US 41 to use the current I-164 route. If that happens, then obviously it would be US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 07, 2014, 02:10:51 PM
I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on March 07, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
Don't recall this being discussed recently, but if the I-69 crossing goes upstream from Evansville (like it appears to be), will Indiana seek an x69 for the remainder of I-164?

I think the general consensus is no, that it will be Veterans Parkway from that point. You are talking about less than 3 miles that could be designated as an interstate, seems kind of pointless.

There are rumors that INDOT is considering re-routing US 41 to use the current I-164 route. If that happens, then obviously it would be US 41.

There are a lot of 3dis that are under 3 miles in length.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 07, 2014, 02:21:54 PM
There are alot barely hitting a mile

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on March 07, 2014, 03:36:28 PM
It's not a national park it's a state park.

4(f) applies to any park or historical resource, including elements of transportation infrastructure (such as historic bridges and tunnels). It is deliberately broad to cover examples like Memphis' Overton Park (a municipal park) or the French Quarter of New Orleans, essentially codifying the freeway revolts as federal law.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 07, 2014, 09:55:56 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 07, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:47:17 PM
If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?

More likely due to Indiana's mileage caps, since they'd likely give old 41 to the city.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 08, 2014, 12:52:53 AM
I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Oh no, that will probably get Mayor Ron worked up again. Somehow in his mind, having a 369 or 569 for the Audubon will not be as significant as 169.

Funny, all these towns try to get every bit of concrete they can converted to a blue-red shield, but sitting here in Evansville, I just don't see the need to make the stub anything other than Veterans Parkway. I guess it could be designated Bypass 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 08, 2014, 03:50:51 AM
I heard its going to be I-169

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Oh no, that will probably get Mayor Ron worked up again. Somehow in his mind, having a 369 or 569 for the Audubon will not be as significant as 169.

Funny, all these towns try to get every bit of concrete they can converted to a blue-red shield, but sitting here in Evansville, I just don't see the need to make the stub anything other than Veterans Parkway. I guess it could be designated Bypass 41.

I hope they keep 41 where it is. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 08, 2014, 04:40:30 AM

If 41 is moved to the I-164 route (a big IF in my opinion) it's not obvious that it would rejoin the old 41 route at the 164 interchange. INDOT could route 41 across the new I-69 bridge, if they can get Kentucky to agree. That might give a little additional boost to I-69 bridge toll receipts, which would be attractive to both states. I'm figuring it will be a toll bridge, though that's not set in stone.

Would a potential move of 41 be to keep traffic coming from Terre Haute, Princeton, etc., on a through-route-grade road on south, or would there be some other reason?

More likely due to Indiana's mileage caps, since they'd likely give old 41 to the city.

Mileage caps?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 08, 2014, 04:41:01 AM
Yep

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 08, 2014, 04:51:45 AM
As of 2013 (http://www.in.gov/indot/2722.htm) they have 832 miles of wiggle room. Getting rid of a 16-mile piece of US 41 isn't going to matter much either way.

(PS: in that table WTF do they mean by "Old State Road" and "Old US route"? Are those internal designations for still-maintained old alignments?)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on March 10, 2014, 02:17:40 AM
As of 2013 (http://www.in.gov/indot/2722.htm) they have 832 miles of wiggle room. Getting rid of a 16-mile piece of US 41 isn't going to matter much either way.

(PS: in that table WTF do they mean by "Old State Road" and "Old US route"? Are those internal designations for still-maintained old alignments?)

That's my guess.  I'm fairly sure the "OUS 50" is the old route through Washington; I can't remember who told me that INDOT still maintains it, but the last time I remember work being done on that road, it was in the INDOT letting list.  It struck me as odd then, but not so much now that I've seen that ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on March 10, 2014, 04:08:47 AM
It'd have to be Washington. The only other ones I can think of would be Bedford or Vincennes (but the latter is unlikely.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 10, 2014, 11:21:46 AM
That's wierd. You would think they would have routed us 150 onto that piece

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 10, 2014, 11:22:16 AM
Are their any other unsigned state roads in Indiana?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on March 10, 2014, 10:03:12 PM
That's wierd. You would think they would have routed us 150 onto that piece

That would not be feasible because key among a number considerations, the bridge over the White river was abandoned so that piece of road doesn't connect to the west anymore.  (OK, they could have upgraded one of the county roads, but they don't really need it.)


Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/12/lobbyists-to-be-hired-for-i-69-bridge/
The article indicates that Western Kentucky and Indiana groups have hired Appian, Inc., an Indianapolis firm specializing in transportation lobbying, to lobby for federal funding for the project. The groups concede that tolls will comprise part of the funding, but will only cover 26% to 43% of the cost.

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/apr/09/no-headline---ebj_chamberfromthepresident/) seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

Quote
I am writing this letter to you on the morning (significance to come) of Tuesday, Feb. 29, one day after returning from a trip to Washington, D.C., with a delegation of business leaders from Southwest Indiana and Northwest Kentucky to discuss our region's needs with federal officials. Our visit had a heavy focus on advocating for the completion of Interstate 69 within Indiana and Kentucky, as well as along the entire national corridor, and construction of a new Ohio River bridge linking Evansville to Henderson.
The visit included a luncheon meeting that was attended by influencers from many parts of the eight state I-69 corridor. Speakers included Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas; Gov. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky; Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky; Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear; Indiana Department of Transportation Commissioner Michael Cline; Jennifer Shepard, executive director of the Alliance for I-69 in Texas; and Mike Schopmeyer, past chairman of the board of directors for The Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Indiana.
During visits with our elected officials to discuss the highway and bridge project, we stayed on message. Key points of our discussions included:
Designate Interstate 69 a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill. This designation will make segments of the highway throughout the corridor eligible for programmatic funding from the Federal Highway Administration and partially mitigate the need for lawmakers to ask for large earmarks to help build the road;
Have the Federal Highway Administration appoint an Interstate 69 Project Manager. This has been done in the past for other multistate highway projects and there is enough progress being made along the entire national corridor – and awareness of the importance of the project to the nation's economic competitiveness – that a Project Manager is warranted;
The construction of a new bridge between Evansville and Henderson is critically important not only to our economic region, but the entire multistate corridor;
The importance of tolling and allowing public/private partnerships to be established to help fund our nation's infrastructure needs.
The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Bridges, or more commonly referred to as the twin bridges by those of us who call the region home, were also discussed fairly extensively during our visit. We talked about the age of the bridges (northbound bridge was built in 1932; southbound bridge was built in 1966), quality of construction, usage (approximately 40,000 vehicles per day), the fact that the bridges are not earthquake or tornado proof, and the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both bridges would have on our regional economy.
Which brings me full circle to the significance of the morning of February 29. Most of us watched in a state of great concern as the weather forecasters told us of an approaching tornado, while warning sirens wailed in the distance. It was a few minutes before 6 a.m. The tornado was taking aim at our fellow citizens and the twin bridges. I could hardly believe that I had just returned from Washington, D.C., to discuss our infrastructure needs the evening before, and was now sitting in my family room watching a very serious storm approach. Thankfully a catastrophe was avoided. No lives were lost. Property damage was significant but not great. The twin bridges remained standing.
We need a new bridge. We will make it happen.

That letter is from two years ago.  What kind of traction has this strategy gotten?

Also, I'm curious what the federal funding level has been for projects comparable to this one.  Can anyone elaborate?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 11, 2014, 01:14:54 AM
Mayor Annoying Orange is still at it...from today's Evansville Courier and Press:

Transportation chief rejects rerouting of I-69 (again) but Owensboro mayor to continue campaign


By Chuck Stinnett
Posted March 10, 2014 at 5:16 p.m.


Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has, through his state transportation secretary, declined to pursue rerouting Interstate 69 through Daviess County, as the mayor of Owensboro has recently proposed.

But Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne said Monday that he intends to press forward with his campaign and intends to meet with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on the matter.

Additionally, he said state Sen. Joe Bowen of Owensboro is working to arrange meetings with state transportation officials in both Kentucky and Indiana.

Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

The state’s latest rejection of his proposal “just doesn’t change anything,”  Payne said.

He said he is also anxious to see a state-commissioned study by Palmer Engineering of Winchester. The study was originally intended to look at the cost of upgrading state parkways into interstate spurs that would connect Owensboro to Interstate 69 at Henderson and Interstate 65 at Bowling Green, but Payne said its scope has been expanded to look at the cost of using the Natcher Bridge for I-69.

“If there is substantial savings to move (I-69) through here, I want someone to tell me why not do that,”  the Owensboro mayor declared.

“This may go nowhere,”  he said. “But the taxpayers of Indiana and Kentucky need to have this done.”

Payne on Feb. 26 wrote to Beshear, asking that “all work on the I-69 corridor in Kentucky be suspended”  until consideration had been given to using the existing U.S. 231/Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

On Friday, Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock, at the governor’s request, advised Payne that the corridor won’t be moved.

Hancock said the I-69 corridor from Mexico to Canada, including the section at Henderson and Evansville, “was selected through intensive evaluation of alternative corridors and associated environmental effects,”  a process that “culminated in Congressional action to write the corridor location into federal law.”

“This routing was decided following several decades of discussion and decision making,”  Will Wingfield, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Transportation, echoed in an email message to The Gleaner.

Both Kentucky and Indiana have worked over the past several years to route I-69 to Henderson and Evansville.

Kentucky has already awarded $34 million in contracts to upgrade portions of the Pennyrile Parkway to become I-69 from Henderson to Madisonville, with more expected.

Indiana, meanwhile, “has opened 96 miles of interstate pointed toward Evansville and (has) an additional 27 miles under construction,”  Wingfield said.

“Given the investment each state is currently making in Interstate 69, it is much too late to seriously consider adjusting the corridor to go through Owensboro,”  Hancock wrote to Payne.

“I believe concrete speaks louder than words on this issue,”  Wingfield agreed.

Payne stunned I-69 supporters on Feb. 6 by proposing that instead of tying into the Pennyrile, I-69 should continue eastward on the Western Kentucky Parkway for some 30 miles, then travel north on the Green River Parkway, east on the Owensboro Bypass and U.S. 60 to the four-lane Natcher Bridge near Maceo, Ky. From there, his proposal would have I-69 travel north on U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana before heading back west on I-64 to the existing I-69 terminus northeast of Evansville.

In his letter Friday, Hancock declared: “Neither the existing Owensboro Bypass, the Owensboro Bypass Extension currently being completed, U.S. 60 from Owensboro to the Natcher Bridge, the Natcher Bridge itself nor the recently improved U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana are interstate-compatible facilities. Accordingly, both Kentucky and Indiana would incur huge expense in reconstructing these routes to fully access-controlled interstate standards with sufficient roadway and bridge widths to accommodate Interstate 69.”

“The letter reiterates everything we’ve been saying the last month since this controversy arose,”  Kyndle President and CEO Brad Schneider of Henderson, a leading I-69 booster, said Monday.

The governor’s views on I-69 are “the same as the letter,”  Schneider said. “I know they collaborated on it.”

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield similarly has dismissed Payne’s proposal, declaring at a Feb. 19 Kyndle luncheon here that the Henderson-Evansville route is “an issue that’s already been decided and it’s over.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 11, 2014, 12:13:32 PM
Mayor Annoying Orange is still at it...from today's Evansville Courier and Press:

Transportation chief rejects rerouting of I-69 (again) but Owensboro mayor to continue campaign


By Chuck Stinnett
Posted March 10, 2014 at 5:16 p.m.


Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has, through his state transportation secretary, declined to pursue rerouting Interstate 69 through Daviess County, as the mayor of Owensboro has recently proposed.

But Owensboro Mayor Ron Payne said Monday that he intends to press forward with his campaign and intends to meet with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on the matter.

Additionally, he said state Sen. Joe Bowen of Owensboro is working to arrange meetings with state transportation officials in both Kentucky and Indiana.

Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

The state’s latest rejection of his proposal “just doesn’t change anything,” Payne said.

He said he is also anxious to see a state-commissioned study by Palmer Engineering of Winchester. The study was originally intended to look at the cost of upgrading state parkways into interstate spurs that would connect Owensboro to Interstate 69 at Henderson and Interstate 65 at Bowling Green, but Payne said its scope has been expanded to look at the cost of using the Natcher Bridge for I-69.

“If there is substantial savings to move (I-69) through here, I want someone to tell me why not do that,” the Owensboro mayor declared.

“This may go nowhere,” he said. “But the taxpayers of Indiana and Kentucky need to have this done.”

Payne on Feb. 26 wrote to Beshear, asking that “all work on the I-69 corridor in Kentucky be suspended” until consideration had been given to using the existing U.S. 231/Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

On Friday, Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock, at the governor’s request, advised Payne that the corridor won’t be moved.

Hancock said the I-69 corridor from Mexico to Canada, including the section at Henderson and Evansville, “was selected through intensive evaluation of alternative corridors and associated environmental effects,” a process that “culminated in Congressional action to write the corridor location into federal law.”

“This routing was decided following several decades of discussion and decision making,” Will Wingfield, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Transportation, echoed in an email message to The Gleaner.

Both Kentucky and Indiana have worked over the past several years to route I-69 to Henderson and Evansville.

Kentucky has already awarded $34 million in contracts to upgrade portions of the Pennyrile Parkway to become I-69 from Henderson to Madisonville, with more expected.

Indiana, meanwhile, “has opened 96 miles of interstate pointed toward Evansville and (has) an additional 27 miles under construction,” Wingfield said.

“Given the investment each state is currently making in Interstate 69, it is much too late to seriously consider adjusting the corridor to go through Owensboro,” Hancock wrote to Payne.

“I believe concrete speaks louder than words on this issue,” Wingfield agreed.

Payne stunned I-69 supporters on Feb. 6 by proposing that instead of tying into the Pennyrile, I-69 should continue eastward on the Western Kentucky Parkway for some 30 miles, then travel north on the Green River Parkway, east on the Owensboro Bypass and U.S. 60 to the four-lane Natcher Bridge near Maceo, Ky. From there, his proposal would have I-69 travel north on U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana before heading back west on I-64 to the existing I-69 terminus northeast of Evansville.

In his letter Friday, Hancock declared: “Neither the existing Owensboro Bypass, the Owensboro Bypass Extension currently being completed, U.S. 60 from Owensboro to the Natcher Bridge, the Natcher Bridge itself nor the recently improved U.S. 231 in Southern Indiana are interstate-compatible facilities. Accordingly, both Kentucky and Indiana would incur huge expense in reconstructing these routes to fully access-controlled interstate standards with sufficient roadway and bridge widths to accommodate Interstate 69.”

“The letter reiterates everything we’ve been saying the last month since this controversy arose,” Kyndle President and CEO Brad Schneider of Henderson, a leading I-69 booster, said Monday.

The governor’s views on I-69 are “the same as the letter,” Schneider said. “I know they collaborated on it.”

U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield similarly has dismissed Payne’s proposal, declaring at a Feb. 19 Kyndle luncheon here that the Henderson-Evansville route is “an issue that’s already been decided and it’s over.”

My goodness, this guy is one piece of work!  He blatantly just wants the reroute to benefit Owensboro, His thoughts on where 69 should go are stupid!  The supposed cost savings by using 231 will just go to the new terrain routes and upgrading what is already there!  69 isn't allowed to go on the 231 bridge due to some road width issues as the cabinet says.  Will he just give up!  The route he proposes makes no sense at all, it will zig-zag to the point where the road isn't even useful.  Payne give it up! You have 0% chance of winning this one!  I like how his route completely screws over evansville completely.  What do you guys think?  does he have any chance at changing the route?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on March 11, 2014, 01:40:13 PM
My goodness, this guy is one piece of work!  He blatantly just wants the reroute to benefit Owensboro, His thoughts on where 69 should go are stupid!  The supposed cost savings by using 231 will just go to the new terrain routes and upgrading what is already there!  69 isn't allowed to go on the 231 bridge due to some road width issues as the cabinet says.  Will he just give up!  The route he proposes makes no sense at all, it will zig-zag to the point where the road isn't even useful.  Payne give it up! You have 0% chance of winning this one!  I like how his route completely screws over evansville completely.  What do you guys think?  does he have any chance at changing the route?

He has about as much chance as a snowball does in Hell.  :evilgrin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 11, 2014, 01:45:11 PM
Haha I agree!

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 11, 2014, 03:34:59 PM
Can he be impeached for idiocy?  His idea makes even less sense that the most nonsensical posts in fictional highways.  It's blatantly obvious he knows nothing about interstates beyond "they're that thing with the blue shield that businesses like".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Great Zo on March 11, 2014, 09:00:04 PM
Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

Well, that's going to make him some friends.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 11, 2014, 09:23:17 PM
Even if 69 was routed through Owensboro on his route, none of the main traffic would go that way. Everyone would go to Evansville and use the existing 41 bridges and travel on their way. At least my idea of using the existing bridges is actually modest. My plan for saving money is smart. His is stupid.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alps on March 12, 2014, 07:05:13 PM
Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County.

Well, that's going to make him some friends.
Speaking very selfishly, I'll be friends with any mayor who wants to waste money on engineering studies, as long as he asks my company to do them. (:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 12, 2014, 09:18:26 PM
Can he be impeached for idiocy?  His idea makes even less sense that the most nonsensical posts in fictional highways.  It's blatantly obvious he knows nothing about interstates beyond "they're that thing with the blue shield that businesses like".

I don't really care what Ron Payne knows about interstates because it doesn't matter.  What is interesting, though, is his motivation.  As I see it, the potential answers are:

a) he is trying to get the word "Owensboro" in the papers a lot in an issue framed around growth and optimism, or
b) the same, with the words "Ron Payne" also attached (pretty much a given regardless), or
c) he's trying to appeal to the fiscal hawks that drool at this sort of "conspiracy to waste tax money" talk, regardless of truth, building name recognition and making him attractive for higher office among said folks, or
d) he has an alternative project up his sleeve that he's really aiming for, hoping to achieve it as a "compromise" when it was his goal all along, or
e) he actually thinks this plan is the right one and our bureaucracy is too intractable to acknowledge when it's wrong, and he's not planning on letting them off the hook, or
f) he personally stands to materially benefit from a rerouting.

I'm sure there are lots of "g) he's mentally ill"-type answers that I'm sure folks will demonstrate their finest creativity with.

Possibility C sounds most reasonable to me, but I don't know the guy's politics, and I don't see a campaign web site for him where he'd get into it, but it'd appeal to people who like that sort of bluster.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 12, 2014, 11:26:27 PM
Still, claiming that having I-69 essentially have a giant sideways U in the middle of its routing just to use an exiting bridge will save money is a big lie.  Even if his claims about saving Kentucky money were true (which they aren't because of these things called "interstate standards"), it definitely would cost Indiana more.  As such I'd actually prefer he be an idiot rather than the more likely chance of having a deeper agenda.  At least idiots don't know any better.  Intentionally lying is a VERY good way to get on my bad side very fast with little chance of forgiveness.

Speaking very selfishly, I'll be friends with any mayor who wants to waste money on engineering studies, as long as he asks my company to do them. (:
Yes, I imagine such friendship comes with lots of "benefits".
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 14, 2014, 05:30:21 AM
The big question about getting the bridge built is how to pay for it. Kentucky and Indiana could come up with the money easily if they just emulate Colorado (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/03/11/its-no-toke-colorado-pulls-in-millions-in-marijuana-tax-revenue/).  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 14, 2014, 09:51:43 AM
One of my guesses on his reasoning, (besides the Mayor is a complete whackadoodle) would be he is positioning himself to get this as a consolation prize.



I-67 project from Dubois County to Owensboro, Ky. to be dubbed 'Midstate Corridor'
By Jonathan Streetman/The Jasper Herald


Posted March 12, 2014 at 1 p.m., updated March 12, 2014 at 1 p.m.
HUNTINGBURG, Ind. – The proposed Interstate 67 project – which would link Dubois County directly to Owensboro – will now be known by a new name. Hank Menke, president of the I-67 Development Corp., announced the switch Wednesday morning.

Menke, president and CEO of OFS Brands in Huntingburg and a member of the government-appointed state Blue Ribbon Commission, said the project is now being called the "Midstate Corridor."

He made the announcement during a presentation at the Huntingburg Chamber of Commerce Business Education Series event at the Old National Bank building. About 20 chamber members were present.

“The end game is still to have an interstate,”  Menke said. “And anything done in Dubois County should be done in interstate grade.”

Interstate grade would allow vehicles to travel up to 70 mph with minimal interchanges to keep traffic flowing.

The name change is not a complete abandonment of the interstate idea, Menke said, but provides a more realistic goal for the near future.

“Gov. (Mike) Pence wanted the Blue Ribbon Commission to think big, so that’s what we did,”  Menke said. “But with so many projects, adding on an interstate is like trying to swallow an elephant. We want to do this correctly and complete it in smaller parts.”

Instead of asking for approval of an entire interstate project stretching from Grand Rapids, Mich., to Nashville, Tenn., Menke is hoping for a smaller section connecting U.S. 231 to I-69 in Washington. The location of the Dubois County connection along U.S. 231 would be determined by the Indiana Department of Transportation at a later date.

The original plan was to connect U.S. 231 to I-69 in Washington by building a 38-mile corridor beginning where U.S. 231 intersects I-64 in Spencer County. It remains undecided if the proposed route would run east or west around Jasper and Huntingburg.

Menke believes the path would benefit Dubois County in a big way. The new section of roadway could also create a route to build from in the future, he said.

Menke said in 2011 that his company’s trucks often skirt U.S. 231 by heading east on I-64 and connecting to I-65 to get to Indianapolis. He said the extra mileage costs his company about $250,000 annually.

“Studies show that communities within 10 miles of an interstate are more likely to bring in jobs than those that are not,”  Menke said.

Menke said Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann, a Ferdinand native, has been a champion for the cause and Menke is optimistic about the corridor’s chances when the Blue Ribbon Commission presents its final report to Pence’s office in June. The commission has met three times – twice in Indianapolis and once in Fort Wayne – and examined several proposed projects throughout the state and attempted to tier their importance. Another Blue Ribbon meeting is set for 1 p.m. Friday, April 25, at OFS Huntingburg headquarters, 1204 E. Sixth Street. The meeting is an open forum.

Last year, the plan was for the projects in Tier 1 to be recommended for completion within five years. Those in Tier 2 were targeted for completion in six to eight years and Tier 3 projects would be finished in 15 to 20 years.

“If we get Tier 2, I’ll be happy,”  Menke said today. “I just want to avoid Tier 3 or getting cut. ... I can’t think of a more vital thing for this region. It would promote job growth and prevent brain drain. It would be all-around beneficial.”

The I-67 project arose 2012. The idea, in part is to alleviate traffic on I-65, which spans from Bowling Green, Ky., to Indianapolis by way of Louisville. The construction of I-67 would also decrease travel time for Dubois County residents traveling to Indianapolis by about 45 minutes, Menke said. A study completed by Massachusetts-based Cambridge Systematics also determined an interstate would decrease accidents along the two-lane U.S. 231 by up to 2 percent, which equates to as many as 500 fewer accidents and 300 fewer significant injuries annually.

© 2014 Evansville Courier & Press. All rights reserved.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 14, 2014, 10:09:09 AM
This is where the good mayor gets exposed for talking out of both sides of his mouth. He wants I-69 to come 40 miles to the east and then back 40 something miles, all in the name of saving taxpayer money. However, he also is pushing for this interstate. If the mayor says it is reasonable to add an extra 80 miles or so to I-69, surely he would also insist it is reasonable and expected for his community to drive 20 miles to Henderson to take an interstate to Indianapolis and north.

I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route. If the purpose of this route is to bring development and help the citizens of Dubois and Owensboro, what about the good folks of Martin County and Loogootee? Washington already has an interstate going to Evansville and Indianapolis. I doubt too many people there care about getting to Owensboro quicker.  Looking at the current map, I can't imagine too many people from Bowling Green/Nashville taking this route to Indy. In fact, when looking at it, it appears that the 24-Pennyrile-69 route would not be much farther than this corridor as a Louisville/65 alternative. Certainly not enough additional miles to justify the Ron Payne interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route.
Using current roads from Jasper to Washington and then I-69 is 14 miles longer than sticking to US 231. A straighter route bypassing Jasper to the west would cut that to below 10 miles. On the other hand, it would cut necessary construction by at least 15-20 miles.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 14, 2014, 10:18:11 AM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere! 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on March 14, 2014, 10:27:58 AM
I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route.

Since I-69 is already built, going to Washington would mean fewer miles would need to be constructed than if going up 231.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 14, 2014, 11:28:07 AM

i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

We live in an age of entitlement.  Everyone's feelings are important, and every town apparently deserves the growth benefits unfairly accorded to those few with the blue and red trademark that denotes "someplace important."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 14, 2014, 11:58:31 AM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!
as long as there are no traffic lights; I'm okay with at-grades when needed.

and a speed limit of 70mph would be much nicer.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 14, 2014, 11:59:40 AM
It's really annoying hearing the whole interstate = jobs thing from politicians.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 14, 2014, 12:09:50 PM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

Agreed. US 41 is deemed adequate serving Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute to NW Indiana/Chicago. US 30 works for Ft. Wayne, Wabash and NW Indiana/Chicago, US 24 out of Fort Wayne, US 31 South Bend/Indy...surely the same would be sufficient in serving towns the size of Owensboro and Jasper. Based on population alone, I would have to assume that traffic counts are significantly higher on US 41, 24, 30 and 31 than would ever be counted along US 231 in Southern Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on March 14, 2014, 12:41:50 PM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

Agreed. US 41 is deemed adequate serving Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute to NW Indiana/Chicago. US 30 works for Ft. Wayne, Wabash and NW Indiana/Chicago, US 24 out of Fort Wayne, US 31 South Bend/Indy...surely the same would be sufficient in serving towns the size of Owensboro and Jasper. Based on population alone, I would have to assume that traffic counts are significantly higher on US 41, 24, 30 and 31 than would ever be counted along US 231 in Southern Indiana.

"But..but..but..(sputter)..the magic red, white, and blue Interstate shield always brings more jobs and moar money!  It's magic, I tell you!  It will magically turn our town into NYC from this shithole just by being posted!"
- Mayor of the Village of Buttfuck, State of Pissant
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 14, 2014, 03:42:56 PM
I also agree with quesitoning why this proposed interstate is going to Washington instead of straight up 231 to 69. That appears to add at least 35-40 miles to the route.

Since I-69 is already built, going to Washington would mean fewer miles would need to be constructed than if going up 231.
And having I-67 take over I-369 to meet I-69 in Henderson would be cheaper still.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 14, 2014, 10:15:26 PM
i-67 has very questionable usefulness at best, what is wrong with a 4 lane divided highway with a 60mph speed limit?  We don't need interstates everywhere!

Agreed. US 41 is deemed adequate serving Evansville, Vincennes, Terre Haute to NW Indiana/Chicago. US 30 works for Ft. Wayne, Wabash and NW Indiana/Chicago, US 24 out of Fort Wayne, US 31 South Bend/Indy...surely the same would be sufficient in serving towns the size of Owensboro and Jasper. Based on population alone, I would have to assume that traffic counts are significantly higher on US 41, 24, 30 and 31 than would ever be counted along US 231 in Southern Indiana.

"But..but..but..(sputter)..the magic red, white, and blue Interstate shield always brings more jobs and moar money!  It's magic, I tell you!  It will magically turn our town into NYC from this shithole just by being posted!"
- Mayor of the Village of Buttfuck, State of Pissant

In fairness, a) it's not just politicians but whole communities creating this hype, and b) people in some towns that do get Interstates talk about them like it was crucial to their economic future (paid attention to the Evansville media lately?).  Why should folks in non-Interstate towns believe differently?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on March 14, 2014, 11:18:15 PM
Not that this really has anything to do with the bridge and responding to the renaming of "I-67" effort to Midstate corridor;

As someone who is frequently on the US231 between Jasper and Crane, I am pleased to see the good folks of Jasper are dropping the non-sense of I-67.  I don't think they could ever be taken seriously.  I also would like to echo the sentiment that US231 does not need to be an interstate, but it certainly needs to be improved.  I also think a new alignment (231 or whatever) to Washington still makes the effort weaker because it serves no purpose beyond the Jasper interest.  As pointed out, when (not if) the I-69 bridge (back on topic!) gets built, you will not have to start much south of Owensboro to choose Evansville as a via point instead of Jasper.  Only the most direct route possible (current 231 corridor) would provide any economic advantage.

Long way of saying, fair start re-naming the effort, but drop the insane zig-zag route to nowhere just to get a bypass built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on March 14, 2014, 11:56:53 PM
I'd say something about Owensboro wanting I-69E, but then I'd just be giving the mayor (bad) ideas.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 15, 2014, 08:57:05 AM
Hopefully I-67 doesn't happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on March 15, 2014, 06:25:01 PM
Game over for Ron Payne... FHWA says that the current route on the Parkways is designated in Federal law.

Quote
U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield (KY-01), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Feb. 26, 2014 regarding recent proposals to alter the route of Interstate-69.
In the letter Whitfield stated: “It has recently come to my attention that some people are interested in shifting the route to the east, following United State Highway 231 from Washington, Indiana to Owensboro, Kentucky.”

Whitfield pointed out that the route currently designated as Interstate-69 is of vital importance to Western, KY, and that he was instrumental in seeing this route designated in Federal law as part of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-244).

Today, Whitfield received an official response from FHWA Deputy Administrator Gregory Nadeau.

In his response, Deputy Administrator Nadeau confirmed that a change in Federal law would be necessary in order to re-route Interstate-69 through Owensboro.

He also stated that the impacts of altering the route at this point would be significant and cost prohibitive, as millions of dollars have already been spent based on current statute and already completed work would essentially have to be re-started in order to accommodate the new route.

“I am pleased that FHWA agrees with me that not only would it require a change in federal law to move the route, but it would also be cost prohibitive. It is also my understanding that the William Natcher Bridge in Owensboro is only a two lane bridge and does not meet Interstate bridge standards, which require a four lane bridge and an emergency safety lane. This essentially negates claims that have been made that the Natcher Bridge would prevent a new bridge from having to be built,”  said Whitfield.  “I understand importance of Interstate 69 to Kentucky and to my constituents in Henderson and the surrounding communities. It is essential that we remain united and committed to completing the designated route as soon as possible,”  he concluded.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 15, 2014, 06:40:49 PM
Mr. Nadeau is mistaken about the Natcher bridge being only two lanes. It has four lanes, but it clearly does not have the required "emergency safety lane." See here: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.902741,-87.035446,3a,75y,157.15h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1wq9ZzxNUu5hDPtpat6EcQ!2e0?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.902741,-87.035446,3a,75y,157.15h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1wq9ZzxNUu5hDPtpat6EcQ!2e0?hl=en)

If you think Mayor Payne is done though, you're wrong. I've seen the type before. He'll just keep squawking, even when no one is listening. Fewer and fewer are listening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 16, 2014, 10:03:35 AM
It's basically the same quality as the US 41 twin bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: theline on March 16, 2014, 06:36:51 PM
Which is why those bridges would not meet interstate standards either.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 08:40:34 AM
Except they claim that the US 231 bridge is interstate quality.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 09:06:43 AM
Except they claim that the US 231 bridge is interstate quality.
Looks like it is.
US 231 Natcher Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/William_H._Natcher_Bridge_Drivethru_P6230270.JPG)
I-295 Dames Point Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg/496px-Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 11:30:04 AM
Except they claim that the US 231 bridge is interstate quality.
Looks like it is.
US 231 Natcher Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/William_H._Natcher_Bridge_Drivethru_P6230270.JPG)
I-295 Dames Point Bridge:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg/496px-Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Northbound_on_Dames_Point_Bridge.jpg)

Can you show a picture of the US 41 twin bridges and the US 231 bridge on the same post?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 11:33:42 AM
No, but you can: http://bridgehunter.com/ky/henderson/evansville/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 11:44:37 AM
(http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/kentucky/images/sbus41ohiorvr1.jpg)

(http://www.roadfood.com/insider/photos/10926.jpg)

There's not much of a difference between these 2 bridges, besides the fact that one is iron and the other is a suspension. (The one on the top is the US 41 twin bridges. The one on the bottom is US 231.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 11:46:59 AM
The shoulder's definitely wider on US 231. How about the lanes themselves? How wide is each lane? It looks like the shoulder plus right lane on US 231 is wide enough for a car to pass a stopped car, but maybe not on US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2014, 11:50:31 AM
Ya maybe, but I don't think it's worth spending a billion dollars to build a new bridge that is a foot or 2 wider.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2014, 11:52:21 AM
Wouldn't an interstate bridge need 2 ten foot wide shoulders on either side of the 2 lanes? So at least 44 feet wide including everything (for just one bridge)?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 17, 2014, 12:25:22 PM
Wouldn't an interstate bridge need 2 ten foot wide shoulders on either side of the 2 lanes?
The Dames Point Bridge doesn't have either, and the FHWA made it part of I-295 in 2010 (or 2011?).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 18, 2014, 12:18:18 AM
The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.

Yep, and the old (northbound) is not wide enough to meet interstate standards. He keeps advocating using the US 41 spans for I-69. In of itself, I really don't have a problem with it, although if that is the case, I would suggest elevating it through the so called Henderson strip rather than ramming it through Audubon Park. But regardless, it still doesn't address the need that Evansville-Henderson needs a second crossing.

You add the 69 traffic to these spans, and the frequent back ups and delays will only get worse. Not to mention, the northbound span is over 80 years old.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 18, 2014, 07:36:48 AM

The other US 41 bridge is about 50 years older. Go look for a photo of it and then compare it to the newer span.

Yep, and the old (northbound) is not wide enough to meet interstate standards. He keeps advocating using the US 41 spans for I-69. In of itself, I really don't have a problem with it, although if that is the case, I would suggest elevating it through the so called Henderson strip rather than ramming it through Audubon Park. But regardless, it still doesn't address the need that Evansville-Henderson needs a second crossing.

You add the 69 traffic to these spans, and the frequent back ups and delays will only get worse. Not to mention, the northbound span is over 80 years old.

The cost of an elevated highway in Henderson will eat significantly into the bridge savings, and you still end up with an 80-year-old bridge. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
Some interesting developments in Henderson today and a little speculation.

There was a truck wreck on the US 41 strip that resulted in a truck spilling a load of tree sap. The road was closed all day and traffic was being detoured via a side street. Traffic was snarled for hours. This is the busiest road in western Kentucky and if the completion of I-69 induces more traffic, look out.

I knew all this because I was in training with my counterpart from the western part of the state. He said the northbound bridge, the oldest one, will need to be replaced in about 20 years. It's possible that after the I-69 bridge is built and it takes through traffic off US 41, the bridge will not be replaced and traffic in both directions will use the other bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on April 17, 2014, 12:17:10 AM
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/tanker-spill-creates-massive-traffic-jam-in-hender/49483/iN6oQdZ-cUy-FyKK2_-lpg

Coverage of the backup. This one is pretty severe, but backups and delays of a couple of hours are all too common.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: billtm on May 18, 2014, 12:53:12 AM
Are their any other unsigned state roads in Indiana?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Yes, Sagamore Pkwy. West in West Lafayette from the new US 231/52 bypass to the Wabash R. bridge is still maintained by INDOT even though it is unsigned. About half of it has already been repaved and the other half is expected to be repaved soon.

On a separate note, why is the bridge planned to be built after the hook of the J? Shouldn't I-69 just go directly south from Covert Ave.? Also, does anyone else think I-69's routing along the parkways of Kentucky is terribly inefficient and jagged? (Especially the segment from Henderson to Calvert City.) I think they should do what they did with I-35 in Kansas between Emporia and KC, and build a new stretch of freeway for that segment. (I think that is what they did in Kansas, but I'm not sure. Tell me if I'm wrong.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on May 18, 2014, 02:46:58 AM
Angel Mounds State Historic Site is in the way if the highway were to go straight south from Covert Avenue. It also looks like there would be a few homes in the way. Meanwhile, south along Green River Road there looks to be about nothing, so it's by far the path of least resistance. As for Henderson to Calvert City route, it was the only way that Kentucky could have the interstate without having to do all those environmental studies that would take years, not to mention that whole building a new-terrain route thing that would cut through some people's properties. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 18, 2014, 04:14:39 PM
Also, does anyone else think I-69's routing along the parkways of Kentucky is terribly inefficient and jagged?

All of I-69 is jagged and inefficient.
A new terrain alignment in KY would have made I-69 an even bigger waste than it already is.
The proposed Ohio River crossing is way more expensive and less useful than blasting through the parking lots and box stores north of Henderson.
But we've covered these issues ad-nausea.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on May 18, 2014, 11:19:10 PM
Angel Mounds State Historic Site is in the way if the highway were to go straight south from Covert Avenue. It also looks like there would be a few homes in the way. Meanwhile, south along Green River Road there looks to be about nothing, so it's by far the path of least resistance. As for Henderson to Calvert City route, it was the only way that Kentucky could have the interstate without having to do all those environmental studies that would take years, not to mention that whole building a new-terrain route thing that would cut through some people's properties.

Angel Mounds is a small part, but primarily they have to keep the bridge far enough west to be past the mouth of the Green River on the KY side.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 03, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Game over for Ron Payne... FHWA says that the current route on the Parkways is designated in Federal law.

Nevertheless, he still won't let it go. This article (behind $1.00 paywall) (http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/local/article_963d615b-e6da-5774-a4f3-0a25fa2af761.html?success=2) reports that, on Monday, he continued to press the issue with KYTC's chief district engineer for District 2:

Quote
Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to bring Interstate 69 through Owensboro instead of the route selected for it through Evansville and Henderson, Mayor Ron Payne on Monday was still arguing his case, this time to Kevin McClearn, chief district engineer for District 2 of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet....
For more than four months, Payne has argued long and hard that routing I-69 through Owensboro and using the William Natcher Bridge would be far less expensive than building a $1.4 billion bridge many years from now across the Ohio River in Evansville-Henderson.
"Why is I-69 going where it is going?" Payne asked McClearn. "We could save a whole lot of money."
Payne insisted to McClearn that, despite all the cost figures contained in the Palmer report for upgrading parkways, four-lane highways and interchanges around Owensboro, all of it together won't cost as much as building a single interstate bridge over the Ohio River.
McClearn answered by saying the route of I-69 has been set by Congress and that work on it in Kentucky is very far along.
"We've followed the law," he said. "We've spent millions, and I-69 is going well. I know Owensboro wants to be on an interstate, and I hope it works out."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 03, 2014, 11:26:54 PM
Arguing your case before a chief district engineer on a project this big is about the biggest exercise in futility this side of trying to convince a vegan to eat a big ol' sirloin steak.

These projects are planned by, at the lowest level, the KYTC higher-ups in Frankfort or the state legislature, or in this case, Congress and the FHWA. A CDE has absolutely no influence over a decision like this. The mayor may be trying to win over an advocate for his cause, but what he's most likely doing is causing the CDE to say the same thing just about everybody else has said: "This guy's certifiable and I wish he'd just go away and leave us all alone."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 06:53:13 AM
Arguing your case before a chief district engineer on a project this big is about the biggest exercise in futility this side of trying to convince a vegan to eat a big ol' sirloin steak.

These projects are planned by, at the lowest level, the KYTC higher-ups in Frankfort or the state legislature, or in this case, Congress and the FHWA. A CDE has absolutely no influence over a decision like this. The mayor may be trying to win over an advocate for his cause, but what he's most likely doing is causing the CDE to say the same thing just about everybody else has said: "This guy's certifiable and I wish he'd just go away and leave us all alone."

A-freaking-men.

At least he has the paper in his corner. They have an editorial today that is nothing but pure ass-kissery. It's priceless. Basically it's tone is this: "Surely all the rest of us will come around and see what a genius we have in our Honorable Mayor!!!"

 /sarcasm
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 04, 2014, 06:55:05 AM
Can you post this editorial?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 07:41:43 AM
It isn't posted to the M-I's website yet. I'll see if I can get a scan of it when I get to work this evening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 09:59:02 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 04, 2014, 10:45:27 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

I-69 was always going to go through Evansville, no other route was ever in the plans ever you can say there were alternatives, but they all went to Evansville, the whole purpose of this highway ever existing in Indiana was to connect Indy with Eville, for the idiot leaders in Owensboro to think that Indiana would have ever even considered using 231, they must be smoking something!  And now I hear they want I-67, which isn't even useful, it's pure selfishness that they want this highway!  I-67 is of least importance to Indiana, there are many projects that were supposed to be built around the state that were defunded and indefinitely shelved because money for them was moved to 69.  There are many, many projects around the state that make more since now than another interstate that parallels an already adequate interstate already in existence.  A 4 lane divided highway is good enough Owensboro, why are they crying so much? They already get a spur of 69! 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 04, 2014, 11:14:48 PM
Here goes ... in PDF form:

https://sites.google.com/site/jdtvbfiles/files/editorial.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

I cut off the headline: "Palmer report validates local concerns" ... riiiiiight.

I-69 was always going to go through Evansville, no other route was ever in the plans ever you can say there were alternatives, but they all went to Evansville, the whole purpose of this highway ever existing in Indiana was to connect Indy with Eville, for the idiot leaders in Owensboro to think that Indiana would have ever even considered using 231, they must be smoking something!  And now I hear they want I-67, which isn't even useful, it's pure selfishness that they want this highway!  I-67 is of least importance to Indiana, there are many projects that were supposed to be built around the state that were defunded and indefinitely shelved because money for them was moved to 69.  There are many, many projects around the state that make more since now than another interstate that parallels an already adequate interstate already in existence.  A 4 lane divided highway is good enough Owensboro, why are they crying so much? They already get a spur of 69!

I totally agree.  It's just ridiculous!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 04, 2014, 11:24:39 PM
Just leave Henderson to be the Breezewood of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2014, 09:17:40 PM
Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 05, 2014, 11:10:25 PM
Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?

From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 05, 2014, 11:38:22 PM

Maybe the mayor wants to set up a "compromise" where he will accept the I-69 spur and take credit for a plan that already existed long before he became mayor?

From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.

Actually, this is one of the least worthwhile of various motives speculated here for a potential "demand I-69 to garner a compromise" scheme underway, and still plausible.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 09, 2014, 12:23:09 AM
From what I understand (and keeping in mind that I am about 5 hours from Owensboro), the mayor isn't bright enough to come up with a plot like that.

^^^ This is the truth!!! ^^^
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 09, 2014, 02:36:51 AM
What was the cost for the Natcher bridge when it was built? The traffic counts on it appear to be fairly small. I don't recall Ron Payne or the M-I showing any fiscal concern when this bridge was built.

Both US 41 and the I-69 bridges will have considerably higher traffic counts than the Natcher can ever hope to attain.

It's bad enough the mayor is brain-dead, but how can you take a newspaper seriously when they obviously have no idea that 69 is ALREADY COMPLETED to Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 10, 2014, 12:41:19 AM
What was the cost for the Natcher bridge when it was built? The traffic counts on it appear to be fairly small. I don't recall Ron Payne or the M-I showing any fiscal concern when this bridge was built.

Both US 41 and the I-69 bridges will have considerably higher traffic counts than the Natcher can ever hope to attain.

It's bad enough the mayor is brain-dead, but how can you take a newspaper seriously when they obviously have no idea that 69 is ALREADY COMPLETED to Evansville.

The Natcher's Wikipedia entry shows the cost was $70 million, but I don't think that includes the relocation/four-laning of Highway 60 (now 60 and 231) from just northeast of Owensboro to the foot of the bridge.  Of course, given what inflation has done in the last 12 years, that could be the whole thing.

No one here that I know of takes the Messenger-Inquirer seriously.  Editorials like this are a good reason why.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 11, 2014, 08:13:56 AM
Thanks for a very interesting clip. It starts out as a roast of Mayor Payne, but it quickly moves on to a serious discussion of the bridges. The Chamber sees the new bridges connecting Evansville and Henderson as inevitable, and I agree. The question is when they will be built. Judging from this clip and other news I've seen upthread, there is a lot of sentiment that it should be done by 2020. That very optimistic goal may not be attainable, but the number of influential forces that are lining up will put a lot of political pressure on getting it done.
That's a lot of work to be done in six years, and I can only imagine the amount of environmental work that will need to be done on a major river crossing like this.
The Brent Spence bridge replacement in Cincinnati is a greater need, and Kentucky will be committing to completing a new 50-mile four-lane Mountain Parkway/KY 114 route between Campton and Prestonsburg by 2020, so I really don't see a 2020 completion date for the I-69 bridges as a reasonable possibility.
Further, Payne said he might propose that the city of Owensboro hire an engineering firm to prepare cost estimates to compare the cost of building a new billion-dollar bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville versus upgrading highways in Owensboro and Southern Indiana and using the existing Natcher Bridge in eastern Daviess County
Well, that's going to make him some friends.

This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge:

Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million.
That's $600 million less than first thought.
Winnecke says this new estimate is partly based on the savings seen in St. Louis with the I-70 bridge.
"The 2008 estimate of $1.4 billion we believe is high," said Mayor Winnecke. "Now with what we've witnessed in St. Louis we really believe it's high, and so we have folks working to narrow to a more refined scope."
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2014, 08:51:49 PM
^ They do remember that only have of the I-70 Mississippi bridge was built, even after scaling it back once, right?  IIRC, the bids for the main span of that bridge were still over the estimate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 12, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
^ They do remember that only have of the I-70 Mississippi bridge was built, even after scaling it back once, right?  IIRC, the bids for the main span of that bridge were still over the estimate.

A bridge like "The Stan" would be sufficient to carry traffic across the Ohio there for at least the foreseeable future, IMHO.  Keep in mind, most local traffic would probably still use the Twin Bridges.  I could be wrong, but if it they can find a way to get it for less, I think they ought to do it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 09, 2014, 10:36:15 PM
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
In an email, he cautions that, as time has passed, it is now basically an artifact of history:
Quote
Please be advised that a final environmental assessment was never approved by the Federal Highway Administration due to the inability of the Henderson-Evansville MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan being able to demonstrate fiscal constraint with this project included.  Given the inability to pay for the alternatives under consideration at that point in time and due to the passage of time, all work prepared really just becomes background or reference information for a new process that would be required should there become a means to fund this undertaking.
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jul/09/state-transportation-panel-ranks-i-69-bridge-as/) reports that the Indiana Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project and that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke has asked Governor Mike Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge:

Quote
Plans for an Interstate 69 bridge linking Indiana and Kentucky received a boost of recognition from the state on Wednesday.
The project was scored among the highest for future transportation projects by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure, whose membership includes Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke.
Gov. Mike Pence accepted the recommendations from the report, but though it lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project, no funding is provided for the project by its inclusion in the report.
Winnecke, who was in Indianapolis for the report’s release, said he’s working to dispel a cost estimate of $1.4 billion for the project. He said the actual cost for the bridge over the Ohio River likely will range between $700 million and $800 million.
Winnecke said he’s asked Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge, which is a required step to determine the route.

Winnecke said he was pleasantly surprised to see how the bridge rated in the report by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure and how other members of the commission saw its importance. The bridge is included as one of four “Tier 1”  projects, which rated as the most significant to the state.
“One of the beauties of the commission is that people really took time to research and read data that were presented in the project,”  Winnecke said. “In our minds in Southwest Indiana, (the bridge) is a completion of I-69.”  ....
Building the I-69 bridge will be a joint venture between Kentucky and Indiana.
Kentucky officials have already done work to study a potential location for the bridge and hope is for construction to begin by 2020.
In October, Winnecke and Henderson (Kentucky) Mayor Steve Austin launched BridgeLink, an organization focused on building the bridge over the Ohio River.

edit

I just noticed that Captain Jack posted a link to this article in the Indiana thread before I finished this post:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg311313#msg311313

I'll go ahead and keep this post unless the mods want to delete it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 10, 2014, 08:18:34 AM
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
In an email, he cautions that, as time has passed, it is now basically an artifact of history:
Quote
Please be advised that a final environmental assessment was never approved by the Federal Highway Administration due to the inability of the Henderson-Evansville MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan being able to demonstrate fiscal constraint with this project included.  Given the inability to pay for the alternatives under consideration at that point in time and due to the passage of time, all work prepared really just becomes background or reference information for a new process that would be required should there become a means to fund this undertaking.
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jul/09/state-transportation-panel-ranks-i-69-bridge-as/) reports that the Indiana Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project and that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke has asked Governor Mike Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge:

Quote
Plans for an Interstate 69 bridge linking Indiana and Kentucky received a boost of recognition from the state on Wednesday.
The project was scored among the highest for future transportation projects by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure, whose membership includes Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke.
Gov. Mike Pence accepted the recommendations from the report, but though it lists the I-69 bridge as a key state project, no funding is provided for the project by its inclusion in the report.
Winnecke, who was in Indianapolis for the report’s release, said he’s working to dispel a cost estimate of $1.4 billion for the project. He said the actual cost for the bridge over the Ohio River likely will range between $700 million and $800 million.
Winnecke said he’s asked Pence to provide funding for an environmental impact study for the bridge, which is a required step to determine the route.

Winnecke said he was pleasantly surprised to see how the bridge rated in the report by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation Infrastructure and how other members of the commission saw its importance. The bridge is included as one of four “Tier 1”  projects, which rated as the most significant to the state.
“One of the beauties of the commission is that people really took time to research and read data that were presented in the project,”  Winnecke said. “In our minds in Southwest Indiana, (the bridge) is a completion of I-69.”  ....
Building the I-69 bridge will be a joint venture between Kentucky and Indiana.
Kentucky officials have already done work to study a potential location for the bridge and hope is for construction to begin by 2020.
In October, Winnecke and Henderson (Kentucky) Mayor Steve Austin launched BridgeLink, an organization focused on building the bridge over the Ohio River.

edit

I just noticed that Captain Jack posted a link to this article in the Indiana thread before I finished this post:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg311313#msg311313

I'll go ahead and keep this post unless the mods want to delete it.

There's a bunch of different projects listed in the report (http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Report_July_9_2014.pdf), so I made a post in the "Indiana Notes" thread talking about it.  The $1.4 billion cost estimate for the bridge is in the report.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2014, 09:44:51 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jul/09/state-transportation-panel-ranks-i-69-bridge-as/)
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke. ....
said he’s working to dispel a cost estimate of $1.4 billion for the project. He said the actual cost for the bridge over the Ohio River likely will range between $700 million and $800 million ...

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/i69-advocates-propose-cheaper-bridge-approaches-plan-would-cut-costs-nearly-in-half_64456086) provides some details on how the reduced cost for the bridge has been calculated; basically, shorten the new terrain approaches and reduce the width of the bridge:

Quote
For years, the greatest obstacle in building a bridge across the Ohio River here for Interstate 69 has been summed up by a cost estimate that was developed a decade ago: $1.4 billion.
Now, a Henderson-Evansville I-69 advocacy group is presenting a modified vision for the project that it says could be built for approximately $800 million – roughly half the cost of the earlier proposal ....
The cost savings would come largely from modifying two aspects of the original proposal:
Constructing a four-lane, rather than a six-lane bridge, with narrower shoulders. It would be 83 feet wide instead of the original 130-foot-wide proposal.
Shaving three miles off a new I-69 roadway, or approaches, that would tie the bridge in with the existing Pennyrile Parkway at Henderson.
The previous vision was to have I-69 swing more than a mile east of the Henderson city limits, crossing U.S. 60-East between Broadview and Pleasantview subdivisions; passing over Kentucky 351 west of Zion; and then crossing the Audubon Parkway before tying into the Pennyrile Parkway somewhere south of the Kentucky 425/South Bypass, a mile or two south of Henderson.
BridgeLink instead proposes having I-69 skirt Henderson’s eastern city limits, crossing U.S. 60-East just east of the railroad viaduct, then passing through farmland behind Balmoral Acres subdivision before tying into the U.S. 41-Bypass (between Kentucky 351 and the U.S. 60 cloverleaf) just north of where it connects with the Pennyrile.
Such a route would trim the length of the new roadway from 9.2 miles to 6.2 miles and reduce the number of interchanges that would be required from five to three by eliminating the need for interchanges at Kentucky 351 and the Audubon Parkway.
“It misses Audubon State Park, it misses the wetlands (along the Ohio River that are associated with the park) and goes between housing (subdivisions),”  Austin said. “All these things are doable and they come in at slightly less than $800 million,”  helped in part by reducing the estimated cost of design work and project contingency percentage to what he called “industry standards.”  ....
As for reducing the bridge itself from six lanes to four, Austin said that would be comparable to the newly opened I-70 bridge across the Mississippi River at St. Louis, which he said handles traffic volumes comparable to an I-69 bridge here ....
BridgeLink also contends that the cost of maintenance on the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges could be reduced if all heavy trucks were required to use the I-69 bridge; Austin said getting heavy trucks off U.S. 41 might also make it feasible to eventually convert the 82-year-old northbound U.S. 41 bridge for use by pedestrians and bicyclists only.



Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx

From the above-linked article:
Quote
The BridgeLink proposal for the bridge approach was one of nine that Kentucky and Indiana considered more than a decade ago, he noted. (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet engineers have also recently been looking at ways to reduce the length and cost of the approach route.)

A new environmental study will have to be conducted; it seems like this alternative was passed over a decade ago.  It will be interesting to see if this alternative survives the environmental process this time around.



Here is a snip of the map of BridgeLink's suggested alternative from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2014, 10:49:47 PM
Of course, if they move the new bridge closer to the existing one, or (as seems likely) have to decommission the older of the two existing US 41 spans, it may end up attracting more traffic sooner than they anticipate. Even if you omit the US 60 interchange now to reduce the diversion attraction, there's no guarantee 10-20 years down the road the locals won't push for it to be added and consequently overload the new bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 17, 2014, 06:35:26 AM
I didn't realize that the original proposal called for a six-lane I-69 bridge. On one hand, that is good thinking ahead, but on the other hand, would it be necessary for a while with the US 41 bridges in place, even if one of the spans would need to be decommissioned? I wonder if the original proposal also called for the entire new terrain route to be six lanes, or just the Ohio River bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 17, 2014, 06:55:04 AM
I'm surprised at the new route–this is where I already assumed was the logical place for it to go.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 17, 2014, 09:06:43 AM
I like the proposed route a lot better... never made sense to me why they weren't going to use more of the existing parkway.

Since they'll be using electronic tolling on the bridge, I think 4 lanes will be fine.  I'd like to see them acquire the ROW so that they could build another parallel bridge in 30-50 years if needed (if one of the US 41 bridges is decommissioned or if traffic increases a lot).

I think the biggest positive is the reduced cost makes funding a lot more feasible, since according to the article tolls would generate $380 million over the first 20 years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 17, 2014, 09:08:02 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on July 17, 2014, 09:11:10 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?

They could build a new 41 bridge and replace the really old one. Then route 69 onto US 41 over the River.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 17, 2014, 09:21:35 AM
They could but having 2 crossings is better
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 17, 2014, 10:23:24 AM

Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?

They could build a new 41 bridge and replace the really old one. Then route 69 onto US 41 over the River.

The ROW is too difficult in Henderson.  Old news. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 17, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
I can't see a six-lane bridge being necessary here. The I-24 bridge at Paducah is only four lanes, and there's no good alternative nearby (the US 45 bridge is old, has a steel deck and has weight/width issues) like there is with the US 41 bridges. Four lanes should be fine.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 17, 2014, 06:33:58 PM
Just leave it alone and have I-69 run through Henderson like I-180 runs in WY and I-70 through Breezewood.  Tons of money saved and good enough to get the job done.  This is an excellent stopping point for folks. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 PM
Just leave it alone and have I-69 run through Henderson like I-180 runs in WY and I-70 through Breezewood.  Tons of money saved and good enough to get the job done.  This is an excellent stopping point for folks. 

And while we're at it, let's just tear down I-10 in Baton Rouge and have interstate traffic use Airline Highway  and Perkins Road.

Seriously?? Either bad attempt of humor, or just plain crazy.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 17, 2014, 10:00:37 PM
US 41 already handles interstate traffic.  The bridges lead to Indiana, however, the other side of the river is still Kentucky at that point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2014, 10:08:36 PM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on July 17, 2014, 10:21:53 PM
US 41 already handles interstate traffic.  The bridges lead to Indiana, however, the other side of the river is still Kentucky at that point.

And just how well is it handling parkway to what currently exists of the I-69 corridor?  How is the level of service/capacity and the accident rate?  How well is it going to handle this traffic in 20 years  when more parts of the I-69 corridor are completed?

I wonder if six lanes for the new bridge was more along the lines of building the bridge so it can handle six lanes in the future, but initially stripe it for four lanes kind of plan?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 17, 2014, 10:41:25 PM
Just leave it alone and have I-69 run through Henderson like I-180 runs in WY and I-70 through Breezewood.  Tons of money saved and good enough to get the job done.  This is an excellent stopping point for folks. 

The Henderson strip is already a cluster foxtrot. When I-69 becomes substantially complete in Indiana and Tennessee, or at least to Dyersburg, where traffic can jump over and hit I-55 in Missouri and Arkansas, and more through traffic starts using I-69, it'll be even worse.

Somebody else complained about I-73/I-74 hatred in another thread. I don't understand this objection to I-69.



I've driven I-40 between Nashville and Memphis once, and that's enough for me. I hated that route. Talk about long and boring. If I'm in Indy and I want to get to Memphis, or to a destination that involves a routing through Memphis, I'm taking I-69. Heck, I'd probably use IN 37 and other routes to get to the completed section of I-69 now. The reason being, you avoid Louisville, you avoid Nashville, and you avoid the heavy traffic on I-65 between Indy and Louisville, and I-40 between Nashville and Memphis.

Even now, I'd rather use the Kentucky parkways and US 51 than go through Nashville and have to endure I-40.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2014, 08:48:20 AM
When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2014, 09:25:36 AM

When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

You are aware, right, that long-distance, high-speed through routes are designed to keep people moving fast the whole way, and  that the notion of a predecided/encouraged/forced commercial-corridor detour from those routes is presumptuous and contrary to the aforementioned goal,

right?



Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on July 18, 2014, 09:52:29 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?

Wanna bet?  US-41 connects the downtowns of two cities on either side of the Ohio River at this point.  It should maintain 4 lanes (2 per direction).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on July 18, 2014, 03:54:14 PM
When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

I'm sure this is what the people in Breezewood, Pennsylvania think. You shouldn't be forced on an interstate to stop in one particular town over another. If you want to stop for a break in Henderson, fine, if you want to stop in Evansville (a larger city with more services,) fine, if you want to wait until Madisonville, fine again. It should be your choice and something not forced upon you because the leaders of that community zoned it that way.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2014, 09:16:44 PM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?

Wanna bet?  US-41 connects the downtowns of two cities on either side of the Ohio River at this point.  It should maintain 4 lanes (2 per direction).
Why wouldn't they just get on I-69 for the short hop?  I guarantee you there will be at least one Henderson interchange on that side of the city and an interchange near where the current US 41/I-69 interchange is.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on July 19, 2014, 12:07:24 AM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
It needs to be replaced anyways, and US 41 will likely have no need for more than two lanes after I-69 is built.  Why not save some money?

Wanna bet?  US-41 connects the downtowns of two cities on either side of the Ohio River at this point.  It should maintain 4 lanes (2 per direction).
Why wouldn't they just get on I-69 for the short hop?  I guarantee you there will be at least one Henderson interchange on that side of the city and an interchange near where the current US 41/I-69 interchange is.

Considering that the road on both sides of the bridge into each town is 4 lanes, it's wisest to just maintain the  4 lanes.  Why should all traffic be forced to use the I-69 Bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2014, 09:19:59 PM
I would think it would be more convenient.  Don't interstates have higher speed limits?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 19, 2014, 09:20:30 PM
Usually
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 19, 2014, 09:56:24 PM
It's a non-starter because you'd lose a lot of goodwill in Henderson over it.  There's a lot of personal and municipal income dependent on that 41 strip and the traffic flowing past.  Sometimes politics is more important than engineering in getting things done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 19, 2014, 09:57:44 PM
I wouldn't say more important, I'd say more popular
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 20, 2014, 03:25:02 AM
When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

That's the reason we have those things called "exits" and "business routes".

Through traffic that is bypassing Henderson should not have to endure stoppage and traffic lights just so you can have a "great place to rest". Either upgrade US 41 to proper Interstate standards with a new/better bridge, or build the bypass. I-69 is mostly about international freight/national travel between Mexico/South Texas and the Midwest, anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 20, 2014, 08:27:49 AM
The whole "international freight" thing I always thought was bs.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 20, 2014, 01:55:02 PM

When I need to get to Chicagoland and points north in WI I use US 41.  The highway is just fine as is.  Yes the bridge does need work.  I don't want it to collapse and dump into the Ohio.  I think it is a nice break to stop in Henderson, not that Henderson is something special, but just nice to say hey it is time to stop.

That's the reason we have those things called "exits" and "business routes".

Through traffic that is bypassing Henderson should not have to endure stoppage and traffic lights just so you can have a "great place to rest". Either upgrade US 41 to proper Interstate standards with a new/better bridge, or build the bypass. I-69 is mostly about international freight/national travel between Mexico/South Texas and the Midwest, anyway.

Henderson' strip will also do just fine as the best cluster of just-off-exit services for many miles (getting off for those things at the Lloyd requires a lot of extraneous driving). 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 20, 2014, 07:58:53 PM
The whole "international freight" thing I always thought was bs.
Agreed.  We already have a perfectly good interstate system international freight can use.  Aside from south Texas, the most-used part of I-69 for international traffic will probably be the Michigan one, to bypass Detroit.  The interior parts of I-69 will likely never be more than anything beyond regional connectors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 20, 2014, 10:33:11 PM
My thoughts as well with regard to the Reconquistador Connector.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on August 01, 2014, 09:30:41 AM
Here is a snip of the map of BridgeLink's suggested alternative from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)

This is what my scribblings from a while back also show for a routing for such a crossing - IMHO it just makes the most sense, carrying the through traffic, allowing convenient I-route access to the locals while maintaining the local utility of the current US 41 routing at the lowest cost.

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: qguy on August 01, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Does anyone have a link to the actual proposal by Bridgelink?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 03, 2014, 09:30:16 PM
New here - but having just travelled there on a vacation, I would say the best idea:

* Replace the older US 41 bridge and rehabilitate the existing US 41 bridge

* Upgrade existing US 41 in Henderson to a freeway (speed limit: 55 mph), elevating at ramps, using service roads to maintain local access

* Interchanges at Waterworks Road for island area access, KY-414/Stratman Road (partial - to/from north only) and Watson Lane, and a reconstruction of the US 60 interchange to eliminate some loop ramps and improve service road access

Lowest cost routing that allows for I-69 to be continuous relatively quickly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on August 04, 2014, 07:34:21 AM
New here - but having just travelled there on a vacation, I would say the best idea:

* Replace the older US 41 bridge and rehabilitate the existing US 41 bridge

* Upgrade existing US 41 in Henderson to a freeway (speed limit: 55 mph), elevating at ramps, using service roads to maintain local access

* Interchanges at Waterworks Road for island area access, KY-414/Stratman Road (partial - to/from north only) and Watson Lane, and a reconstruction of the US 60 interchange to eliminate some loop ramps and improve service road access

Lowest cost routing that allows for I-69 to be continuous relatively quickly.

I agree with everything except for the US 60 part. Why would you want to ruin a perfectly good interchange?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 04, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
I think keeping them separate is better having a bypass for through traffic would be great especially in the event that an accident closes a bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 11, 2014, 02:09:34 PM
I think keeping them separate is better having a bypass for through traffic would be great especially in the event that an accident closes a bridge.

Couldn't they just move traffic to one lane on the other bridge though (except during replacement or reconstruction)? After all, those bridges will need major work anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 31, 2014, 11:51:01 PM
Why would they decommission the us 41 bridge?  Why not just build a new one?
They could build a new 41 bridge and replace the really old one. Then route 69 onto US 41 over the River.
The ROW is too difficult in Henderson.  Old news.

In this August 19 video interview of KYTC's Keith Todd (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/in-depth-keith-todd-addresses-i-69-traffic-concern/25425/HRK6OjbrcEqyV0aeTYJsIw), Todd mentions that KYTC's senior engineers are exploring the possibility of taking out the double turn lanes on Henderson's strip in order to add an extra travel lane.  They are anticipating substantial extra traffic in five to ten years and believe that adding the extra traffic lane would greatly improve the traffic flow.  The traffic flow dipped to approximately 37,000 vehicles per day several years ago, but has slowly crept back up to 41,000 vehicles per day.



A bridge like "The Stan" would be sufficient to carry traffic across the Ohio there for at least the foreseeable future, IMHO.  Keep in mind, most local traffic would probably still use the Twin Bridges.  I could be wrong, but if it they can find a way to get it for less, I think they ought to do it.

Above said, I don't think Todd was suggesting that a new travel lane would remove the need for an I-69 bridge; it would basically serve as a short-term solution until the new bridge could be built.  Regarding a new I-69 bridge, Todd suggested that a bridge like "The Stan" would be sufficient for the anticipated traffic flow.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 24, 2014, 05:27:18 PM
In the recently completed I-69 Innovative Financing Study Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf), the Final Findings set forth a standalone traffic and toll analysis for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge
On pages 47-49/122 of the Final Findings (pages 42-44 of the document), an analysis is performed under three scenarios to determine what percentage of the bridge's project cost could be covered by innovative financing.  The three scenarios and the percentage covered by innovative financing:
1. Base Case: This case assumes the SIU’s financing is solely supported by toll revenues. 71%.
2. Case 1: Under this case, the security for the bonds and the TIFIA loan are enhanced by a contractual obligation of the State DOT to pay operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, and replacement expenses to the extent toll revenues are not sufficient. This back‐up obligation or “credit enhancement”  allows the bonds and TIFIA loan to be secured by a pledge of gross toll revenues. 90%.
3. Case 2: This case improves on Case 1 by adding a full secondary lien security or legal pledge to the debt from a high credit worthy nontoll revenue source(s) such as a state transportation trust fund or a state’s full faith and credit. This significantly improves the SIU’s credit rating to an assumed ”˜AA‐’ that results in additional project debt proceeds. 100%.

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/engineers-say-too-soon-to-say-where-i69-will-go-how-it-will-be-paid-for_59975520) reports that Kentucky’s assistant state highway engineer with primary responsibility for the I-69 project believes that the use of tolls to finance the bridge should be given "careful consideration":

Quote
Further studies are being done or are on the drawing board, said Rusty Fowler, the district engineer with the Indiana Department of Transportation who has responsibility for the southwest part of the state. “That’s the first thing we’ve got to find out – how are we going to fund this thing.
“If we don’t follow the rules it jeopardizes federal funding,”
he said in response to a question on why design hasn’t already begun. “We want to make sure we get the steps in the right order.”
Building the new bridge with toll revenue has been a popular idea, and one supported by BridgeLink. “We’re pushing for a tolled new interstate to help this move forward,”  said Christy Gillenwater, BridgeLink’s moderator of the panel.
But Paul Looney, Kentucky’s assistant state highway engineer with primary responsibility for the I-69 project, said that idea needs careful consideration.
“Tolling could be a primary financing mechanism,”  said Looney, who conceded he is “relatively new to the I-69 project.
“But one of the things (the planning study indicated) was that the toll revenue may be inadequate if the existing bridges are left in place, given the diversion of traffic that may occur.”

Henderson and Evansville are “two cities-one community to a large degree,”  in that many people cross the river on a regular basis to work, play and shop. “The local connection in having it be toll-free is obviously … a critical element for the day-to-day connectivity of the area.”
But leaving the Twin Bridges toll-free while charging tolls on a new I-69 bridge could pose a “challenge,”  he said, in that the toll revenues may not be sufficient to pay off the bonds.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 24, 2014, 10:52:25 PM
Ban trucks on the old bridges and restripe them to one lane. That'll force much of the through traffic onto the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on September 25, 2014, 06:45:20 AM
Ban trucks on the old bridges and restripe them to one lane. That'll force much of the through traffic onto the I-69 bridge.

Or if the older bridge is demolished or converted to a pedestrian/bike facility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 25, 2014, 07:40:22 AM
Just throw a few traffic lights up on 41 near Ellis Park for no particular reason.  Everywhere else makes it inconvenient to shunpike; they just need to learn the tricks.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 25, 2014, 07:41:27 AM
Just throw a few traffic lights up on 41 near Ellis Park for no particular reason.  Everywhere else makes it inconvenient to shunpike; they just need to learn the tricks.
Hahahaha so pull a kokomo?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 11:43:11 AM
Just throw a few traffic lights up on 41 near Ellis Park for no particular reason.  Everywhere else makes it inconvenient to shunpike; they just need to learn the tricks.

The way traffic can jam up on the Henderson stretch now, I can understand the desire to pay a toll to bypass that congestion, especially if a completed I-69 leads to an increase in through traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on September 25, 2014, 08:33:02 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

That could be the eventual compromise........build the new bridge as toll, and keep a single two-lane US 41 bridge open as a free facility.  The congestion on the free bridge will attract traffic to the new span.  Also, keep the tolls reasonable, especially for frequent travelers. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSF on September 26, 2014, 05:55:56 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Was not a fun time to travel that stretch of US-41, not that there ever is.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on September 28, 2014, 05:41:32 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on September 28, 2014, 06:32:17 PM
Sure, once those bridges are brought up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2014, 10:43:17 AM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on September 29, 2014, 06:46:05 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on September 29, 2014, 08:25:31 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on September 29, 2014, 08:31:19 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
It doesn't need to get a direct ramp. But FHWA.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on September 30, 2014, 12:56:30 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Those were either grandfathered in when the interstate system was started or were built to older standards.  New interstates (even using existing pavement) do not get grandfathered in.  I think a road needs to be upgraded for a new interstate even if it already has an interstate designation (see: I-81 in Binghamton).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on September 30, 2014, 02:00:36 PM
^If the current I-164/US 41 interchange was good enough, I'm sure the Pennyrile/Western Kentucky cloverleaf would not be getting a direct ramp for the EB to NB movement.
It doesn't need to get a direct ramp. But FHWA.

PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on September 30, 2014, 08:43:53 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.

Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.

Which is why they should be used for I-69.

They aren't up to interstate standards for lane widths and shoulders, particularly the older bridge.

I know, but there are many other sections of interstates that aren't interstate quality. Are there 2 lanes each direction across the 2 bridges? Yes. Semis and cars travel them safely every day. They're there and ready to be used. The 41 / 164 interchange is also good as far as 69 is concerned.
Those were either grandfathered in when the interstate system was started or were built to older standards.  New interstates (even using existing pavement) do not get grandfathered in.  I think a road needs to be upgraded for a new interstate even if it already has an interstate designation (see: I-81 in Binghamton).

Well there should be an exception here. A billion dollars isn't exactly easy to come by all because there's not a shoulder on the existing bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 30, 2014, 08:45:04 PM
I think the real reason is the old bridges are not worth fixing for an interstate and they would like to have multiple crossings
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: froggie on October 01, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
Quote
PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on October 01, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
Quote
PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.


PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on October 02, 2014, 06:51:50 AM
Quote
PS: I-69 was built with a cloverleaf loop at I-55 in Mississippi. There's no reason the one in Kentucky can't stay.

PPS:  that was designed and construction began before I-69 was approved.


PPPS: so was the cloverleaf in Kentucky.

And so were the US 41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 12:53:24 PM
When was the Mississippi I-69 section designated?  I know the FHWA was once a lot looser with standards when designating interstates on an existing road than they are now.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 08, 2015, 11:16:36 AM
KYTC has posted the 2014 Recommended Highway Plan (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Pages/2014-Highway-Plan.aspx). The Project Listing (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Highway%20Plan/2014RecommendedProjectListing.pdf) section includes preliminary engineering and environmental in 2018 for a possible US 41 bridge replacement as an intermediate solution for an I-69 bridge (page 55/139 of pdf)
(http://i.imgur.com/BnoPeJA.png)
Kyndle is a new organization born of the merger of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce and the Northwest Kentucky Forward regional economic development organization:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/dec/20/merger-of-chamber-nwkf-into-kyndle-now-official/
(bottom quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg281743#msg281743) thread)

In this Comment (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/opinion/comment-kyndle-lays-out-legislative-priorities_73384752), Kyndle urges the Kentucky General Assembly to move the availability of funding for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") from 2018 to 2016*, supports state legislation that would enable public-private partnerships in Kentucky, and urges federal entities to give I-69 the proper designations to enable it to receive significant federal money:

Quote
Kyndle applauds the states of Kentucky and Indiana for continuing to work diligently toward the completion of Interstate 69 in our region.
We urge the General Assembly to protect funds allocated for I-69 construction in our state and to continue to add the funding necessary to achieve its creation. We applaud the amount of support I-69 has in the road plan, including $2.5 million for an environmental impact study (EIS) for an I-69 Ohio River crossing. Kyndle asks legislators to work to move the availability of that EIS money from 2018 to 2016. We also ask legislators to work with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to assure a long-term, toll-free route across the Ohio for local residents that would be both a compliment [sic] to the new I-69 bridge and provide the redundancy this region needs to assure that accidents such as barge collisions into the bridge or natural disasters won't result in a shutdown of traffic between Evansville and Henderson.
Kyndle urges the General Assembly to create a revenue model for the state road fund that would produce more consistent funding for infrastructure projects and make it easier for KYTC to plan for the state's future transportation needs.
Kyndle strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and include it in the new National Freight Network list.
Kyndle supports legislation enabling Kentucky to fully utilize public-private partnerships (P3) to complete infrastructure projects of all types and find more cost-efficient, effective ways to perform government functions.

They seem resigned to the probability that the I-69 bridge will be tolled; as a result, they want to ensure that at least one of the US 41 bridges will be in operation for a long time as a toll-free facility.

edit

* Kyndle may be confused; as reflected in the top above quote, the funding for the EIS is intended for an intermediate US 41 solution for the Ohio River crossing before construction of the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2015, 09:00:48 PM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 09, 2015, 07:31:33 AM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.

I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 09, 2015, 09:44:22 AM
Add this to the "waste of money in your state" category.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to spend that much money on design for replacement of a bridge that, while old, got a lot of work just five or so years ago and will see the amount of traffic on it decrease when a new I-69 bridge is built.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 09, 2015, 11:08:47 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 09, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

I think they should maintain both crossings as 4 lane crossings.  traffic would decrease on 41, but would it be low enough to downgrade to just 2 lanes over that river?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 09, 2015, 07:10:57 PM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on February 09, 2015, 08:13:44 PM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2015, 12:27:41 AM

I don't remember what your stance is on bypassing the commercial strip north of Henderson, but do you think frontage roads and tight interchanges would work through there? I suppose you could go through the state park.

No, I don't think they'd work. ROW purchase and relocation costs would be astronomical.

I agree with you. The US 41 bridges are fine for I-69. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they end up using the 41 bridges for 69.

That's not what I'm saying. The southbound bridge, especially, is woefully inadequate for an interstate bridge. What I'm saying is it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate (see above), a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

This is the first I have heard of an interim 41 bridge replacement.  Has this actually been proposed?  Particularly given talk I've heard here that there was recent rehab work done there, this would seem to make sense... to nobody.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 10, 2015, 06:35:00 AM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...

Which should also be modified to a directional ramp/flyover for continuity's sake. Through routes should not be delegated to one-lane loop ramps.


Also...wasn't the original concept of the I-55/I-69/I-269 interchange based on I-69 going around the outer limits of Memphis via what is now I-269/TN 385??


As for the OP: I'd prefer building a new I-69 bridge/bypass and keeping the older US 41 bridge for local connections, probably even adding pedestrian/bicycle access. No reason the two couldn't coexist.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 10, 2015, 06:44:23 AM
Something else to consider, that loop ramp from WB 69 to SB 41. No way that will be allowed to continue if they went that route, that interchange, or part of it would have to be rebuilt similar to what's being done at the Pennyrile-Western Kentucky interchange.
I-55/I-69 in Mississippi...
Also...wasn't the original concept of the I-55/I-69/I-269 interchange based on I-69 going around the outer limits of Memphis via what is now I-269/TN 385??

I don't think it was decided at the time the interchange was constructed if I-69 would go through Memphis or bypass Memphis. I suspect MDOT used a cloverleaf with C/D lanes since it was the cheaper option.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 12, 2015, 08:28:59 PM
In this Comment (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/opinion/comment-kyndle-lays-out-legislative-priorities_73384752) ... :
Quote
Kyndle strongly encourages Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to designate Interstate 69 as a Project of National and Regional Significance and include it in the new National Freight Network list.
Kyndle supports legislation enabling Kentucky to fully utilize public-private partnerships (P3) to complete infrastructure projects of all types and find more cost-efficient, effective ways to perform government functions.

In this article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/bus-service-between-henderson-evansville-being-discussed_62590212), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is quoted as asserting that the I-69 Ohio River Bridge is currently being reviewed at the federal level for designation as a project of national or regional significance, which would increase the opportunity for federal funding; he is also quoted as asserting that Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships:

Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ....
The new bridge is “the biggie”  at this point, he said, but progress is being made at the federal level as well as in Indiana and Kentucky. The federal government is looking at designating the bridge as a project of national or regional importance, which would open new funding opportunities.
Indiana is studying whether tolls could help fund it, and Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships, which Winnecke called “a key financing tool that can be used for Kentucky to help make the project happen.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 12, 2015, 09:02:54 PM
There is a contingent from northern Kentucky who are dead-set against P3 in Kentucky because they are dead-set against tolls for the Brent Spence Bridge. The governor vetoed a P3 bill last year because it contained a provision against tolls. He's stated that if he doesn't get a clean P3 bill this year, he'll veto it too.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 13, 2015, 03:45:09 PM
I really don't think tolls would fund the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, at least in the foreseeable future. There won't be enough of a traffic increase at the onset, so most locals will just continue to use the US 41 bridge instead.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2015, 10:47:06 AM
In this article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/bus-service-between-henderson-evansville-being-discussed_62590212), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ... :
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ....
The new bridge is “the biggie”  at this point, he said ... Indiana is studying whether tolls could help fund it ...”

In his State of the City Address that is quoted here (https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=69505), Evansville Mayor Winnecke states that the Indiana toll study should be completed "later this summer":

Quote
One strategic investment by the state is Interstate 69. Yes, the trip to Bloomington is much better, and the trip to Indianapolis will get even better in the years to come.
I'd like to recognize my colleague from Henderson, Kentucky, Mayor Steve Austin.
Together with the Bridge Link coalition, our advocacy for the future Interstate 69 bridges is steadfast and gaining traction in Indianapolis and Frankfort. The Indiana Department of Transportation is currently working on a statewide transportation funding outline. In that report, INDOT is conducting a tolling study for the Interstate 69 bridge project and should be completed later this summer.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2015, 08:06:50 PM
I really don't think tolls would fund the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, at least in the foreseeable future. There won't be enough of a traffic increase at the onset, so most locals will just continue to use the US 41 bridge instead.

This may be the real irony here–northbound traffic going into most of Evansville would be going out of their way to stay on an easterly-alignment 69.  Traffic would end up somewhat lighter on 41, so it might be a more attractive route.  This is where missing ramp movements to coerce toll payment (a la Garden State Parkway, Mass Pike Extension) come in handy, but that'd be shitty.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 26, 2015, 09:57:08 AM
In this article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/bus-service-between-henderson-evansville-being-discussed_62590212), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke is quoted as asserting that ... Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships:
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke ....
Kentucky may pass legislation allowing public-private partnerships, which Winnecke called “a key financing tool that can be used for Kentucky to help make the project happen.”
There is a contingent from northern Kentucky who are dead-set against P3 in Kentucky because they are dead-set against tolls for the Brent Spence Bridge. The governor vetoed a P3 bill last year because it contained a provision against tolls. He's stated that if he doesn't get a clean P3 bill this year, he'll veto it too.

This article (http://www.enquirerherald.com/2015/02/26/3392387/kentucky-house-passes-public-private.html) reports that a bill authorizing the use of P3s in Kentucky easily passed the Kentucky House and that an amendment banning the use of tolls on the Brent Spence was defeated:

Quote
In a debate overshadowed by an ambitious bridge proposal on the state's northern tier, the Kentucky House passed legislation Wednesday evening that would authorize use of public-private partnerships for mega-dollar transportation work and other projects ....
The Democratic-run House passed the measure on an 84-13 vote after considering a series of amendments. The bill now goes to the Republican-led Senate ....
In a key vote, the House defeated an amendment by Rep. Arnold Simpson that would have banned the use of tolls to fund a new Brent Spence Bridge.
Similar anti-tolling language was attached to last year's public-private partnerships bill, prompting a veto by Gov. Steve Beshear, who is a strong advocate for the partnerships ....
Rep. Tommy Thompson said western Kentucky stands to benefit from the partnerships. He said state and federal governments can't muster the financing for mega-projects such as a possible new Ohio River bridge as part of the Interstate 69 project in western Kentucky.
"The only way that's going to probably become a reality, for we need that in our part of the state, is with a public-private partnership,"
the Owensboro Democrat said.

On to the Kentucky Senate ......................
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 14, 2015, 10:06:54 AM
it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money at this time on a potential replacement for the southbound bridge when the I-69 bridge(s), when built, will take a lot of traffic off of the US 41 corridor and probably give the existing bridge a new lease on life. Given the difficulty in converting the US 41 Henderson strip to an interstate ... a new-terrain I-69 route with a new bridge is the best option.

Community leaders and participants in Henderson have posted a March 2015 Henderson Vision Comprehensive Plan (https://visionhenderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/henderson-vision-plan_final-march-2015.pdf), in which they provide a blueprint for how Henderson should evolve in the future.  As far as I can tell, the vision presumes that the I-69 Ohio River Bridge will eventually be built; as a result, I find it interesting how they want the US 41 Strip to evolve after construction of the I-69 bridge.  First, they want small area plans to be developed around the future I-69 interchanges and the function of the US 41 corridor (page 110/124 of pdf; p. 103 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/gsIqVtb.jpg)

Next, they focus in on the US 41 corridor (p. 113/124 of pdf; p. 106 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/6xwWE7i.jpg)

So, the Big Picture for the US 41 Strip is to transform into a Complete Street.

Also, the group identified Second Street as the future main gateway into Henderson and that it should evolve into a gateway, a district, and a greenway (p. 115/124 of pdf; p. 108 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/lN3yHKa.jpg)

Here is a snip of the group's Access & Mobility map (p.77/124 of pdf; p. 70 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/tIj5dZi.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 02, 2015, 11:49:25 PM
This article (http://www.enquirerherald.com/2015/02/26/3392387/kentucky-house-passes-public-private.html) reports that a bill authorizing the use of P3s in Kentucky easily passed the Kentucky House and that an amendment banning the use of tolls on the Brent Spence was defeated ....
On to the Kentucky Senate ......................

Well, the P3 legislation did not pass and this March 27 blog (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/03/potential-for-tolls-didn-t-kill-brent-spence.html?page=all) comments on the reasons why the Kentucky Senate failed to pass the P3 legislation:

Quote
In the GOP-controlled Senate, one prominent Republican leader, state Sen. Damon Thayer, opposes tolls and so do members of the Northern Kentucky delegation. But that isn’t what sunk the legislation there in 2015.  In 2015, the legislation was filed late to try to buy time and build support. This year, it did not have a provision for local projects because Beshear’s office and the groups representing Kentucky cities and counties could not agree to language. That became a problem when the short, 30-day 2015 legislative session was made shorter by bad weather ....
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce CEO Trey Grayson, a former Kentucky secretary of state and experienced Frankfort hand ....
In the case of the P3 bill, Kentucky’s cities and counties didn’t actively try to snuff it out, Grayson said, but it ended up being left behind because lawmakers outside of Northern Kentucky didn’t care enough about getting it done.
“You just kind of ran out of time,”  Grayson said.
“The only people who cared a lot about it at the end were the three Northern Kentuckians who were opposed. As a result, it was easy to set aside. If you’d had one more week, it probably would have passed.”
In 2016, the game will have changed. Kentucky elects a new governor in November.
“The wild card will be what is the new governor’s position on the Brent Spence Bridge as a piece of this,”  Grayson said.

This April 2 article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/ridley-says-kentucky-needs-bipartisan-cooperation-in-legislature_01404955) reports that Western Kentucky officals want P3 as an option for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, even if Northern Kentucky officials are opposed to tolls:

Quote
Sen. Dorsey Ridley .... said ....
"If they will at least come across the aisle and have a conversation with us we could do that. We could have passed the P3 (public-private partnership) legislation, in my estimation, and allow us to move forward in building the bridge we need on I-69."
Kyndle CEO and President Brad Schneider agreed
, but said "in Kentucky, sometimes our differences are regional more than they are by party.
"Next session, let the folks in Northern Kentucky know – while they figure out what they want to do – we'd love to move forward here," Schneider said. To fund bridges and other infrastructure in Western Kentucky, he said, "P3 would be a great tool in the toolbox." ....
Rep. Suzanne Miles, R-Owensboro
....
expressed disappointment in the failure of the P3 legislation. "The main thing is for us to get that (Interstate 69) bridge. P3 is one of the best things for that opportunity."

A lot of talk regarding the I-69 Ohio River Bridge and a lot more time for talk before the 2016 session.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2015, 10:47:12 PM
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge:
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million.
That's $600 million less than first thought.
Winnecke says this new estimate is partly based on the savings seen in St. Louis with the I-70 bridge.
"The 2008 estimate of $1.4 billion we believe is high," said Mayor Winnecke. "Now with what we've witnessed in St. Louis we really believe it's high, and so we have folks working to narrow to a more refined scope."
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.

Slide 38/54 of an April 22, 2015 state-by-state status updates presented to the I-69 Congressional Caucus PowerPoint (linked on this page (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/resource.html)) confirms the revised cost estimate for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

(http://i.imgur.com/lX2cE2r.jpg)

However, it is unclear whether KYTC is aware of the new strategy.  This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/kentucky-transportation-head-i69-will-be-integral-to-henderson_19825252) reports that Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock was the featured speaker at a May 7 Kyndle meeting and that he provided a cost estimate for the bridge that appears to be more in line with "old" 2008 estimate:

Quote
Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock ....
As the effort to get I-69 to Henderson nears its completion, the next and greater challenge will be to construct an I-69 bridge from Henderson to Evansville.
“We estimate Kentucky’s share will be $1 billion,” Hancock said. Tolls will almost certainly be required, even if they don’t cover the full cost of financing the span.
While uncertainties remain, he said, efforts continue, “so we are not allowed to forget about crossing I-69 between Henderson and Evansville.”

The coordination of efforts might need to be tightened up a little.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 10, 2015, 06:20:10 AM
Shortened route?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on May 10, 2015, 11:07:12 PM
Shortened route?

I believe the "shortened route" moves the new route closer to US 41 and makes more use of the Pennyrile, rather than branching off to the east well to the south of KY 425 as originally planned. I believe the map in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2050548#msg2050548) reflects the shortened route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 10, 2015, 11:46:59 PM

Shortened route?

I believe the "shortened route" moves the new route closer to US 41 and makes more use of the Pennyrile, rather than branching off to the east well to the south of KY 425 as originally planned. I believe the map in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2050548#msg2050548) reflects the shortened route.

Ok.  This is the route I'm most familiar with, so I didn't realize it was shortened from whatever the cost estimates were based on. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 13, 2015, 07:24:06 PM
Here is a snip of the group's Access & Mobility map (p.77/124 of pdf; p. 70 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/tIj5dZi.jpg)

This is more like it.  Those older proposals with the new bridge out in the boonies are absurd.  I sure hope this gains traction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 06, 2015, 10:59:50 AM
This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020 ...
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million. That's $600 million less than first thought ...
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.

This July 23 TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/mayors-state-of-the-city-henderson-is-doing-just-f/23396/6Y3gFJS6V0K-TCXSCVR15w) reports on Henderson Mayor Steve Austin's recent State of the City address and it includes an interview with him in which he asserts that the completion of I-69 and the I-69 Ohio River bridge is his number one priority, but he does not discuss either cost or a schedule to get it built:

Quote
In his State of the City address on Thursday afternoon, Henderson Mayor Steve Austin told the Rotary Club and others in attendance that the city has momentum. That momentum, Mayor Austin said, will take the city into the future ....
Mayor Austin said his number one priority still is the completion of I-69 and the construction of a new Ohio River bridge.
"We are working with our congressional folks and Washington folks. We are working with our state folks," Mayor Austin said. "We are working our highway departments. It's constantly on our mind and we're going to get it accomplished."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 06, 2015, 02:57:31 PM
Does anyone know when this bridge might be constructed? It seems like not for quite a while.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 06, 2015, 02:58:16 PM
Does anyone know when this bridge might be constructed? It seems like not for quite a while.
Not anytime soon, I don't even think it's been designed yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on August 07, 2015, 10:15:20 PM
March 2015 Henderson Vision Comprehensive Plan (https://visionhenderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/henderson-vision-plan_final-march-2015.pdf) ....
Next, they focus in on the US 41 corridor (p. 113/124 of pdf; p. 106 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/6xwWE7i.jpg)
So, the Big Picture for the US 41 Strip is to transform into a Complete Street ....

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/state-considering-ways-to-ease-traffic-on-hendersons-us-41-strip_50348846) reports that KYTC is studying improvements to US 41 North, but uncertainty regarding the timetable for building the I-69 Ohio River bridge adds a difficult element to the study:

Quote
... a host of proposals generated by an engineering consultant for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to keep traffic moving and reduce wrecks and injuries on the busy highway.
The study was ordered after state Sen. Dorsey Ridley, of Henderson, asked the cabinet to look into making improvements on U.S. 41-North, said Kevin McClearn, the agency's District 2 chief district engineer, at a news conference Thursday afternoon.
The cabinet hired the Stantec engineering firm and directed it to perform a traffic study and develop options, "from low cost to high cost," for improving the highway, he said.
Stantec so far has identified projects ranging from less than $1 million to a collection of projects totaling $16.4 million.
The construction of a bridge for Interstate 69 across the Ohio River from Henderson to Evansville would remove much of the traffic from U.S. 41-North.
"Of course, one thing we are unsure of as to I-69 is when it's going to happen and where's it's going to go," McClearn said.
....
There's a possibility that a new bridge would replace the aging Twin Bridges, which are 50 and 83 years old, respectively.
"Obviously it will have a large impact on the strip," he said. " ... Do we want to spend several million dollars when a few years down the road I-69 comes through and removes the through traffic?"
On the other hand, relief is needed before then. U.S. 41-North carries an average of 40,400 vehicles a day between Marywood Drive and Watson Lane and about 38,000 across the Twin Bridges, according to McClearn.
That is only going to increase. He said Stantec projects that will go up about 1 percent each year, reaching almost 47,000 vehicles daily by 2030.
"Is there something we can do for a moderate amount (of money) for the next 10 or 15 years while we're getting (the) I-69 (bridge) built?" he said ....
Between 2012 and 2014, 433 crashes were reported along U.S. 41-North, with 86 injuries suffered. Two out of every five were rear-end collisions.
Among the proposals under consideration to address that:
Constructing a north-south "backage" road behind businesses on the east wide of U.S. 41-North so, for example, a motorist could travel from Henderson Chevrolet to Old Orchard Shopping Center without getting on the highway. Its cost is estimated at $3.3 million.
Raising the median along U.S. 41-North to eliminate left turns except at traffic signals.
Realigning the Audubon Village shopping center traffic signal to line up with Barker Road.
Meanwhile, an early proposal to add an extra driving lane in each direction was deemed unworkable because of lane widths, left-turn issues and the high cost of acquiring right of way along the highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on August 18, 2015, 09:09:06 AM
Evansville folk continue to push for the bridge to get built

http://www.courierpress.com/news/i69/i69-bridge-could-help-perception-issue-for-evansville_72709575

Quote
Much of the discussion centered around Interstate 69 and specifically the prospective bridge from Evansville to Henderson that would provide a link to the Southern U.S. The theme was making Evansville more accessible and placing it along a major freight route.

State officials are in the process of determining where they will come up with the $850 million to build the bridge. But Dennis Faulkenberg, president and chief executive officer of APPIAN, said it’s imperative that people consider the significant benefits the bridge would provide.

“This is not to be a cul-de-sac in Evansville, and that’s what (I-69) is going to be without that bridge,”  he said. “Surely we didn’t spend a billion dollars to get here for a cul-de-sac. This is to go on to greater things and to bring people to us. This is not just for us to get south; it’s to get people from the South coming to Evansville and doing business in Southwest Indiana.”

Quote
The next hurdle would be figuring out how to fund the Evansville-to-Henderson bridge. Tolls are a likely option and one that Faulkenberg said polls suggested the public would support if necessary.

Faulkenberg, who also works with the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation and BridgeLink, said he and other transportation experts met with Indiana and Kentucky legislators, namely Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, as well as Kentucky gubernatorial candidates Jack Conway and Matt Bevin, about the importance of the bridge. All have given supportive statements, he said.

Congressman Larry Bucshon, who helped start a bipartisan I-69 caucus in Congress earlier this year, spoke at a session at Monday’s event. He said a bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson via I-69 would “an enormous win for our regional and national economies.”

“The bridge would undoubtedly enhance the regional mobility of our products and people and improve the safety of the traveling public,”  he said. “I plan to continue working with my colleagues in the Congressional I-69 Caucus, like Congressman Ed Whitfield, as well as regional leaders like the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Bridgelink and Mayor Lloyd Winnecke to complete this important component of our nation’s multi-modal freight transportation.”
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 18, 2015, 09:12:41 AM
Evansville folk continue to push for the bridge to get built

http://www.courierpress.com/news/i69/i69-bridge-could-help-perception-issue-for-evansville_72709575

Quote
Much of the discussion centered around Interstate 69 and specifically the prospective bridge from Evansville to Henderson that would provide a link to the Southern U.S. The theme was making Evansville more accessible and placing it along a major freight route.

State officials are in the process of determining where they will come up with the $850 million to build the bridge. But Dennis Faulkenberg, president and chief executive officer of APPIAN, said it’s imperative that people consider the significant benefits the bridge would provide.

“This is not to be a cul-de-sac in Evansville, and that’s what (I-69) is going to be without that bridge,”  he said. “Surely we didn’t spend a billion dollars to get here for a cul-de-sac. This is to go on to greater things and to bring people to us. This is not just for us to get south; it’s to get people from the South coming to Evansville and doing business in Southwest Indiana.”

Quote
The next hurdle would be figuring out how to fund the Evansville-to-Henderson bridge. Tolls are a likely option and one that Faulkenberg said polls suggested the public would support if necessary.

Faulkenberg, who also works with the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation and BridgeLink, said he and other transportation experts met with Indiana and Kentucky legislators, namely Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, as well as Kentucky gubernatorial candidates Jack Conway and Matt Bevin, about the importance of the bridge. All have given supportive statements, he said.

Congressman Larry Bucshon, who helped start a bipartisan I-69 caucus in Congress earlier this year, spoke at a session at Monday’s event. He said a bridge connecting Evansville and Henderson via I-69 would “an enormous win for our regional and national economies.”

“The bridge would undoubtedly enhance the regional mobility of our products and people and improve the safety of the traveling public,”  he said. “I plan to continue working with my colleagues in the Congressional I-69 Caucus, like Congressman Ed Whitfield, as well as regional leaders like the Southwest Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Bridgelink and Mayor Lloyd Winnecke to complete this important component of our nation’s multi-modal freight transportation.”
They may get their wish, next year Indiana government claims it will be "infrastructure year" I'll believe it when I see it. 69 isn't really a culdesac per se, us 41 is good enough until it 69 is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 06, 2015, 10:51:57 AM
Community leaders and participants in Henderson have posted a March 2015 Henderson Vision Comprehensive Plan (https://visionhenderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/henderson-vision-plan_final-march-2015.pdf), in which they provide a blueprint for how Henderson should evolve in the future ....
Here is a snip of the group's Access & Mobility map (p.77/124 of pdf; p. 70 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/tIj5dZi.jpg)

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/workshop-will-help-guild-henderson-land-use_25731976) reports that, with the Vision Plan in place, Henderson is now working on the Comprehensive Plan, which can be viewed as the "road map" for implementing the Vision Plan:

Quote
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission is going to do a little crystal-gazing Sept. 14, and would like the public’s assistance in laying the foundation for future land-use decisions.
The event, which will begin at 5 p.m. Sept. 14 in the top-floor meeting room of the Henderson Municipal Center, is a combination workshop and open house about the proposed city-county Comprehensive Plan’s map, which the Planning Commission is in the process of updating ....
“It’s important, and the public should have lots of input,”  said city-county Planner Brian Bishop, noting the Comprehensive Plan will dovetail into the Vision Plan adopted earlier by the city of Henderson.
“The Vision Plan sets the destination. I like to think the Comprehensive Plan is the road map to help get us there.”

TSW Design Group of Louisville drafted the Vision Plan, with considerable public input, and is also drafting the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, so it will have representatives at the Sept. 14 workshop.

The article also suggests that I-69's route around Henderson should be finalized in 2016:

Quote
Most of the questions at the Sept. 14 workshop will probably be about specific parcels of property and the route of Interstate 69, Bishop said. But since the I-69 route has not yet been finalized, there’s not much definitive information that can be relayed.
In fact, a separate chapter of the Comprehensive Plan has been reserved for use in 2016 once the actual I-69 route is known.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 08, 2015, 05:17:58 PM
I really don't think tolls would fund the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, at least in the foreseeable future. There won't be enough of a traffic increase at the onset, so most locals will just continue to use the US 41 bridge instead.
This may be the real irony here–northbound traffic going into most of Evansville would be going out of their way to stay on an easterly-alignment 69.  Traffic would end up somewhat lighter on 41, so it might be a more attractive route.  This is where missing ramp movements to coerce toll payment (a la Garden State Parkway, Mass Pike Extension) come in handy, but that'd be shitty.

This TV video (http://www.14news.com/story/29983408/leaders-discuss-future-of-i-69-bridge) reports on a Sept. 8 meeting in Evansville about the future of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, during which it appears that the participants want to keep the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges as a free option for local traffic and have the burden of possible tolls for the I-69 bridge fall primarily on truck through traffic:

Quote
A meeting was held in downtown Evansville on Tuesday to discuss the future of the new I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.
A big point of discussion was keeping the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges open for people who live in the area.
The new bridge would connect the I-69 portions of Indiana and Kentucky ....
INDOT is performing a study to see if tolls on the bridge would support the cost.
"The key about the Twin Bridges is…it gives us a free, local route for people in Evansville and Henderson,”  said Brad Schneider with KYNDLE.
“It will be through traffic, commercial traffic - those folks will be paying the bulk of the tolls.
  I guess local people could use the new bridge for convenience but maintaining a free local route is key to our plans.”
The path of the new I-69 bridge would start near Weinbach Avenue in Evansville and loop around Audubon State Park in Henderson.

The INDOT toll study should make for some interesting reading .......

edit

This article about the meeting (http://www.courierpress.com/news/facing-our-future/should-indiana-and-kentucky-raise-taxes-for-i69-bridge_88074694) emphasizes the possibility of raising gas and diesel taxes to help pay for the bridge:

Quote
... if we’re going to do something about preservation, maintenance and building the new, needed infrastructure, like the bridge over the Ohio River to complete I-69 … we’re going to have to do something about a severe INDOT (Indiana Department of Transportation) funding shortfall and it’s going to take some tough decisions,”  said Dennis Faulkenberg, president and chief executive officer of APPIAN ....
The key question for the region discussed by the panel at the Rotary lunch was: How to fund the $850 million connection between Kentucky and Indiana?
Tolls, gas and diesel taxes and other fees could help fund that, Faulkenberg said.

He pointed out that diesel taxes in Indiana haven’t increased since 1989, and inflation over the last 25 years has diminished the power of the dollars collected.
While bridging gaps in state funding is crucial, Laurie Maudline, also with APPIAN, said federal funding is “absolutely critical.”
Federal gas and diesel taxes haven’t been increased since 1993, Maudline said.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 06:01:14 PM
Interesting, so the northern end is no longer at Green River but at Weinbach.  Shorter route, makes more sense, but now it's right there at the 41 bridges, making them that much more attractive. 

I suppose they could eliminate the exit from the stub end of 164 (whatever it will be called) southbound to 41 South to discourage through traffic that way, but that would really complicate a lot of folks' route into Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 08, 2015, 06:11:52 PM
Interesting, so the northern end is no longer at Green River but at Weinbach.  Shorter route, makes more sense, but now it's right there at the 41 bridges, making them that much more attractive. 

I suppose they could eliminate the exit from the stub end of 164 (whatever it will be called) southbound to 41 South to discourage through traffic that way, but that would really complicate a lot of folks' route into Henderson.

If it splits at Weinbach, then I'd say the stub would just be an exit ramp and not signed as anything but whatever exit # us 41 is (probably 0)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2015, 01:21:07 PM
This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/workshop-will-help-guild-henderson-land-use_25731976) reports that, with the Vision Plan in place, Henderson is now working on the Comprehensive Plan, which can be viewed as the "road map" for implementing the Vision Plan:
Quote
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission is going to do a little crystal-gazing Sept. 14, and would like the public’s assistance in laying the foundation for future land-use decisions.
.... The article also suggests that I-69's route around Henderson should be finalized in 2016
This TV video (http://www.14news.com/story/29983408/leaders-discuss-future-of-i-69-bridge)
Interesting, so the northern end is no longer at Green River but at Weinbach.  Shorter route, makes more sense, but now it's right there at the 41 bridges, making them that much more attractive.

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/gl_comp-plan_34933682) reports that that the final route will not be known for at least two to three years because the updated Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") process has not started:

Quote
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission’s future land use map shows large areas of the western part of the county being used for parks and recreation. But what it doesn’t yet show is where Interstate 69 is going to cross the Ohio River.
Monday’s workshop by the Planning Commission largely focused on Interstate 69, but the upshot was to discuss it further at the Oct. 6 meeting ....
“Nothing we do here actually changes the zoning,”  said Amy Williams, the consultant helping draft an updated Comprehensive Plan, of which the map is a part. But she noted the future land use map will come into play if a rezoning is requested.
“If you ask for a rezoning, that’s what it ought to be rezoned to.”
She quickly moved on to I-69. “The chapter on I-69 won’t be done until 2016,”  she said. “We’re waiting on the assigned route,”  said city-county Planner Brian Bishop.
“It won’t be next year because the updated environmental impact statement won’t even be started,”  said Brad Schneider, president and CEO of Kyndle. “It might take two or three years to determine this route.”
The route earlier suggested by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet would split off the Pennyrile Parkway, cross Kentucky 351 between Graham Hill and Zion, cross U.S. 60 between Pleasantview and Broadview subdivisions, and cross the Ohio River downstream of the Green River.
An organization called BridgeLink has come up with a much cheaper alternative. “It goes around the east side of town, but it cuts a much closer path to town and intersects with the existing roadway much sooner,”  said Schneider.

The question the Planning Commission wrestled with was which route to place on the future land use map.
“I’m just leery of the Planning Commission making decisions on rezonings … based on an estimated route,”  Bishop said.
“I wouldn’t base your land uses on that right now,”  Williams said.

It seems like they would be better served by starting the EIS process now and developing the Comprehensive Plan after the final route has been determined.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 15, 2015, 07:54:39 PM
Here is a snip of the map of BridgeLink's suggested alternative from the article:
(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)

This article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/gl_comp-plan_34933682) reports that that the final route will not be known for at least two to three years because the updated Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") process has not started:
Quote
“We’re waiting on the assigned route,”  said city-county Planner Brian Bishop.
“It won’t be next year because the updated environmental impact statement won’t even be started,”  said Brad Schneider, president and CEO of Kyndle. “It might take two or three years to determine this route.”  ....
An organization called BridgeLink has come up with a much cheaper alternative. “It goes around the east side of town, but it cuts a much closer path to town and intersects with the existing roadway much sooner,”  said Schneider.

I recently looked at the Proposed I-69 Route Page at hendersonplanning.org (http://hendersonplanning.org/gis-maps/proposed-i-69-route) and noticed that it has a link to a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared. The above map, which presents the alternative favored by BridgeLink, came from that study (p. 66/82 of pdf; p. 47 of document).  BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a and here is a snip from another map of it (p. 51/82 of pdf; p. 32 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/DHwY38N.jpg)

Some light reading for anyone who is interested, even though it is not the requisite environmental study.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2015, 09:11:37 PM
I would not be surprised if the older of the two US 41 spans would be closed to vehicular traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.  Since that span is already over 80 years old, I am not sure how many more years of useful life it will have left without prohibitive maintenance costs.
Both bridges got an extensive rehab about six years ago. They shouldn't need anything major for a long, long time.
Which is why they should be used for I-69.
This TV video (http://www.14news.com/story/29983408/leaders-discuss-future-of-i-69-bridge) reports on a Sept. 8 meeting in Evansville about the future of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, during which it appears that the participants want to keep the U.S. 41 Twin Bridges as a free option for local traffic and have the burden of possible tolls for the I-69 bridge fall primarily on truck through traffic
a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared .... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a .

An interesting aspect of the January, 2014 Feasibility Study is that all of the alternatives except for Alternative 1a would involve closing the Twin Bridges and building a new bridge (p. 18/82 of pdf; p. ES11 of document):

Quote
In this Feasibility Study, seven alternatives and some variations were examined at the concept level. All but one of these alternatives (1a) would close the existing US 41 twin bridges over the Ohio River northeast of Henderson and construct a new bridge.

The goals of the Feasibility Study were identified as follows (p. 21/82 of pdf; p. 2 of document):

Quote
The following goals were identified for the project Feasibility Study:
* Provide for a single river crossing for US 41 and I-69.
* Shorten the project from its original concept so that as much of the existing Breathitt Parkway and US 41 are used for the future I-69 as possible.
* Provide access from I-69 to the businesses along US 41.

After looking at the comments from the September 8 Evansville meeting and seeing BridgeLink's favored alternative, it seems like the notion of closing the Twin Bridges and having a single crossing I-69 bridge is a non-starter for most people.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 28, 2016, 12:41:12 PM
This was great news to hear.  Kentucky Governor Bevin both confirmed his commitment to I-69 and specifically announced during his first State of the Commonwealth speech his intention to dedicate millions of dollars towards accelerating Kentucky's portion of the new I-69 bridge and roadway over the Ohio River.
http://www.thegleaner.com/news/bevin-road-plan-includes-millions-in-new-money-for-i-69-bridge-project-2a53b7b1-f655-3c52-e053-01000-366760241.html
Quote
On Wednesday, the state released hard copies of the proposed road plan. As BridgeLink requested, the money for the environmental study was moved forward to 2017.
The plan calls for $2.82 million to be allocated in 2017 for the environmental study but then goes on to call for $41 million for the project, spread out over three years, starting in 2019, to "develop alignment for Interstate 69 Henderson/Evansville Ohio River crossing."
The project would receive $6 million in 2019, $20 million in 2020 and $15 million in 2021 for preconstruction work.
"That's all new money (for the project),"
This is great news!  Now if Indiana can step up its share of the project, we may see I-69 between Indiana and Kentucky a reality much sooner.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg2123036#msg2123036) thread)

Great news indeed!  Here is a snip from the Projects List of the 2016 Recommended Highway Plan (p. 51/119 of pdf) (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Documents/2016RecommendedProjectListing.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/EVq5Q5g.png)



This TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/story/d/story/new-i-69-bridge-could-be-cheaper-than-first-projec/12452/uxo-FAbnKkW6rbmNxcA57Q) reports that Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still hope to have the bridge built by 2020, and Winnecke says a new study supports a reduced cost estimate of $800 million to build the bridge:
Quote
Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke says the I-69 bridge could be a lot cheaper than first projected.
Mayor Winnecke says a new study shows the bridge could cost about $800 million.
That's $600 million less than first thought.
Winnecke says this new estimate is partly based on the savings seen in St. Louis with the I-70 bridge.
"The 2008 estimate of $1.4 billion we believe is high," said Mayor Winnecke. "Now with what we've witnessed in St. Louis we really believe it's high, and so we have folks working to narrow to a more refined scope."
Mayor Winnecke and Henderson Mayor Steve Austin hope to have the bridge built by the year 2020. Both expect it to be a toll bridge. However, a price to cross the bridge hasn't been revealed.

The above article linked by EngineerTM reports that Henderson Mayor Steve Austin still expects tolls to pay approximately fifty percent of the bridge's cost:

Quote
Henderson Mayor Steve Austin ....
said the money in the road plan was exciting news.
"Nothing can happen can happen until the environmental impact study is complete, so getting that will really put things on fast track," he said. "I think tolls will pay for about 50 percent (of the bridge's cost) so we'll need help from the state and federal governments, but getting that environmental study moved up is certainly important."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 29, 2016, 12:04:38 PM
the Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf). Here is a map of the Alternatives that were considered (page 13/23 of pdf; page S-13 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/h8WNT.jpg)
Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document)
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared ... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a and here is a snip from another map of it (p. 51/82 of pdf; p. 32 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/DHwY38N.jpg)
This was great news to hear.  Kentucky Governor Bevin both confirmed his commitment to I-69 and specifically announced during his first State of the Commonwealth speech his intention to dedicate millions of dollars towards accelerating Kentucky's portion of the new I-69 bridge and roadway over the Ohio River.
http://www.thegleaner.com/news/bevin-road-plan-includes-millions-in-new-money-for-i-69-bridge-project-2a53b7b1-f655-3c52-e053-01000-366760241.html
Quote
On Wednesday, the state released hard copies of the proposed road plan. As BridgeLink requested, the money for the environmental study was moved forward to 2017.
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg2123036#msg2123036) thread)

This January 28 article (http://www.thegleaner.com/news/schneider-gives-update-on-kyndle--2a2eabeb-ae1b-79b9-e053-0100007f7872-366903111.html) reports on Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider's belief that the environmental study will focus on the above two corridors:

Quote
Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider tuned into Gov. Matt Bevin's State of the Commonwealth address Tuesday because he heard the governor might mention I-69 ....
The governor bumped up the environmental impact study on the bridge from 2018 to 2017.
He also added $300,000 to the project and added $41 million for pre-construction work in years 2019-21.
Schneider thinks this signals that Bevin is going to update the environmental impact study on the old route, examine the new route and do a total revenue study that will jibe with the one done in Indiana last fall.
"That is great progress," he said. "That is a commitment and I don't think they are going to back off." ....
Schneider said he's frequently asked about where the new bridge will be built. There is not a firm answer, but Kentucky is considering two primary corridors.
A route identified in 2004 swings well east of Henderson, crosses U.S. 60, Kentucky 351 and the Audubon Parkway before hooking up at the Pennyrile Parkway just south of the Kentucky 425 bypass.
A second route
was identified a few years ago and was backed by BridgeLink – a nonprofit advocacy group that is pushing for the bridge to be built by 2020. It's a less expensive option and requires less new roadway, Schneider said.
This route heads east of existing twin bridges and Ellis Park, crosses east of Audubon Park, cuts around the Braxton Park subdivision, crosses U.S. 60, then heads along the railroad line right to the U.S. 41 bypass.
"It's basically hitting right in between the Cloverleaf and the Zion Road exit," he said.

It will be interesting to see whether KYTC will be required to study additional corridors as part of the environmental process, or, in the alternative, whether information gleaned from the 2004 DEIS and the 2014 SIU 4 Henderson County Feasibility Study will allow KYTC to immediately focus on the above two corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on January 30, 2016, 09:16:44 AM
A while back I sent the Henderson mayor and idea that involved using the US 41 bridges. I sent this before the BridgeLinks Alt 1 came out. They may have actually used part of my idea. Here is what I sent them.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/create/#id=P_kuh1y__g&lat=37.88232700812191&lng=-87.62328368840485&z=12&t=hybrid
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 30, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
why the hell would indiana go for a new terrain route?  how in the world would that be cost effective at all?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 31, 2016, 06:35:38 AM
There's no way they'll use the existing bridges. They're too old and need too much work ... and you don't add any capacity that's really needed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 02, 2016, 03:03:42 AM
There's no way they'll use the existing bridges. They're too old and need too much work ... and you don't add any capacity that's really needed.

Those bridges should be left as-is for local traffic, Allow 69 to just bypass both towns with that becoming 69BL.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 07:27:23 AM
I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 01:22:12 PM
I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.

The current ROW through Henderson would have to be rendered limited-access.  This ROW is lined with businesses.  I don't know if you've been to downtown Henderson, but it's not exactly a boomtown, and the 41 strip represents a big part of the city's retail sector (and tax base).  It would have potentially severe long-term negative impacts to Henderson to obliterate that, essentially asking the people of Henderson to pay a tremendously higher cost than anyone else for the new bridge.

As for how Indiana would go for a new-terrain route, very little of the route will be in Indiana either way.  The state line is well north of the river.  Few Indianans will be severely inconvenienced beyond having to pay for the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 01:24:14 PM

I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.

The current ROW through Henderson would have to be rendered limited-access.  This ROW is lined with businesses.  I don't know if you've been to downtown Henderson, but it's not exactly a boomtown, and the 41 strip represents a big part of the city's retail sector (and tax base).  It would have potentially severe long-term negative impacts to Henderson to obliterate that, essentially asking the people of Henderson to pay a tremendously higher cost than anyone else for the new bridge.

I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that the current 41 bridges need to be replaced, and 69 should bypass the city to the east, the 2 western bypass ideas are crazy (from Indiana's prospective)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 02:14:20 PM


I don't think they were ever going to use the old bridges, they need to be replaced themselves.

The current ROW through Henderson would have to be rendered limited-access.  This ROW is lined with businesses.  I don't know if you've been to downtown Henderson, but it's not exactly a boomtown, and the 41 strip represents a big part of the city's retail sector (and tax base).  It would have potentially severe long-term negative impacts to Henderson to obliterate that, essentially asking the people of Henderson to pay a tremendously higher cost than anyone else for the new bridge.

I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that the current 41 bridges need to be replaced, and 69 should bypass the city to the east, the 2 western bypass ideas are crazy (from Indiana's prospective)

Oh, I don't think the western bypass ideas have been seriously considered in a long time. All the current proposals I've heard taken seriously in the past couple of years have involved bypassing the 41 strip to the east and a new interchange on the former 164 someplace between 41 and S. Green River Rd.

The most elegant alignment runs directly south from the bend in the former 164. But this also involves a lot more right-of-way to be constructed new, and that is understandably not ideal.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 02, 2016, 05:40:53 PM
It's actually too bad they can' t use the alignment where the bridges are now and just to a rebuild, but it would be cost prohibitive, and a complete nightmare diverting traffic to a temporary crossing, which again would be cost prohibitive.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 06:54:24 PM
I'm curious what kind of interchange will be built in Evansville.  Even if existing 41 were used, a full reconstruction of the current 41/69 interchange would have to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 02, 2016, 07:53:51 PM
A little update on the potential I-369 spur route (Audubon Parkway to Owensboro)
http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/77-owensboro-news/34218-owensboro-city-commission-hears-from-transportation-cabinet
No number for this road has been assigned. 169 makes more sense than 369
The I-69 Spur page (http://gotransportation.net/highway_plans_&_projects/i-69_spur.php) on the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce website projects a preference for I-169:
(http://i.imgur.com/QY1vW1U.png)
I thought it was going to be called i-369, I think I even saw it signed on google maps too
(above quote from I-69 in KY (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.msg264276;topicseen#msg264276) thread)
Just noticed today that the Route Log and Finder list was updated on January 27, 2016. There is a new URL as well at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/index.cfm
(above quote from Updated FHWA Interstate Route Log As Of Dec. 31, 2015 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17389.msg2124087#msg2124087) thread)
I'm curious what kind of interchange will be built in Evansville.  Even if existing 41 were used, a full reconstruction of the current 41/69 interchange would have to happen.

FHWA still has 21.24 miles of I-164 on the books, even though it has been redesignated as I-69. Assuming existing 41 is not used, I-69's new routing to the east will leave a remnant of the old I-164 as part of the interchange. Since that remnant would then connect to I-69 instead of I-64, would it need to redesignated as an I-x69 instead of defaulting back to the I-164 designation?  If so, would FHWA require that it be a different number than Kentucky's future I-x69 designation for the Audubon Parkway in order to avoid confusion to the traveling public, even though the two routes, although close in proximity, are in different states?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 08:24:25 PM
There's a good chance the Evansville stub will be so short there will be no need to number the scant bit before Veterans Parkway begins.  If it's an unsigned number, it can be I-238 for all anyone is concerned.

But that aside, you do realize that what the Owensboro Chamber has on that shield is "I69," not "169," right? 

I don't think it matters what number the x69 to Owensboro might be (so long as it is different than anything as close as the Evansville stub, should that get a number), but given the way Owensboro's mayor fought all reason in order to get I-69 moved there a year or two ago, I wouldn't be too surprised to see someone there go ballistic to get the number they want, too.  Which is a little nuts, if you ask me, because this is a city with a two-room airport we're talking about.  Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 02, 2016, 08:39:26 PM
As for how Indiana would go for a new-terrain route, very little of the route will be in Indiana either way.  The state line is well north of the river.  Few Indianans will be severely inconvenienced beyond having to pay for the bridge.
The map posted above has two alternatives to the west that both dwarf I-164 in length.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
As for how Indiana would go for a new-terrain route, very little of the route will be in Indiana either way.  The state line is well north of the river.  Few Indianans will be severely inconvenienced beyond having to pay for the bridge.
The map posted above has two alternatives to the west that both dwarf I-164 in length.

That map above with a November, 2002 date above the legend, that is.  There has been no recent public consideration of those alignments.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 03, 2016, 08:11:57 AM
Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Out of curiosity, were you from the region? Because... Moonlite BBQ is just amazing. Owensboro is one of my favorite Kentucky towns to visit for the food (from the state, originally).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on February 03, 2016, 08:58:28 AM
Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Out of curiosity, were you from the region? Because... Moonlite BBQ is just amazing. Owensboro is one of my favorite Kentucky towns to visit for the food (from the state, originally).

Wish I had known that before going through there a couple of years ago.  Looked like the place was hurting quite badly when I was there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 03, 2016, 10:10:03 AM

Moonlite BBQ or no, Owensboro shouldn't carry enough weight to be calling the shots.

Out of curiosity, were you from the region? Because... Moonlite BBQ is just amazing. Owensboro is one of my favorite Kentucky towns to visit for the food (from the state, originally).

No, I just visit folks in the region.  Stopped at Moonlite when catching a flight out recently.  I still have dreams about the mutton.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 03, 2016, 10:38:10 PM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 04, 2016, 12:12:02 AM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

If that's true, then judging by the dozen or more delivery vans at Moonlite, Owensboro must be absolutely drowning in tourists getting service at their hotels.

In any case, I was a satisfied tourist.  The locals at the buffet, when they found out I was new there, gave me a hearty welcome and good advice.  It was great.

The other place must not be downtown.  On a weekday afternoon, an astounding number of businesses were closed.  For all Owensboro's talk ("Move 69 here," "Give us an x69," "Our riverfront and convention center and budget airport will knock your socks off") I was a little disappointed how little its potential-filled city center delivers.  Moonlite is the most worthwhile place I've been there. 

There is a pretty neat arty coffee shop downtown, though I feel like the patrons must vanish into the air once they walk out its doors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 04, 2016, 12:42:52 AM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

My guess is you are thinking of Old Hickory.

On a side note, the bad blood between Evansville and Owensboro, particularly Mayor Ron has began to boil quite a bit harder. Evansville was in a tough lease negotiation with its minor league hockey team when Mayor Ron appeared out of nowhere and gave the hockey team owner, Ron Geary, the Owensboro Sportscenter. A few stips, primarily Geary has to put $6 mil into renovating it, but the arena is basically his. On the surface it seems ridiculous for a hockey team to leave a larger market with a 5 year old state of the art arena, for Owensboro and a 70 year old dump that isn't even large enough in its current state to hold hockey..but...Geary, who also owns Ellis Park, gets a new OTB parlor in Owensboro as well.

Of course, this has sent Winnecke and the city of Evansville in full batcrap mode. They are publicly working feverishly to secure a new hockey team for the Ford Center. I have a friend who works at the Evansville Airport, and he has heard that Winnecke has asked the Airport Board to make every attempt possible to lure Allegant Airlines from Owensboro to Evansville. EVV currently has three commercial airlines, American, Delta and United, while Allegant is the only commercial carrier in OWB. Allegant already markets this as (Evansville). Losing Allegant would be a huge blow to OWB.

It's really sad that these cities can't work together for the common good of the region, as Evansville and Henderson appear to do. However, Mayor Ron seems to be incapable of that, as seen with his rather moronic attempt to relocate an already completed I-69 away from Evansville.

Regardless, things should be interesting in this region for awhile.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 04, 2016, 07:14:08 AM
Moonlite is for tourists. The locals prefer another BBQ joint in Owensboro, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

My guess is you are thinking of Old Hickory.

On a side note, the bad blood between Evansville and Owensboro, particularly Mayor Ron has began to boil quite a bit harder. Evansville was in a tough lease negotiation with its minor league hockey team when Mayor Ron appeared out of nowhere and gave the hockey team owner, Ron Geary, the Owensboro Sportscenter. A few stips, primarily Geary has to put $6 mil into renovating it, but the arena is basically his. On the surface it seems ridiculous for a hockey team to leave a larger market with a 5 year old state of the art arena, for Owensboro and a 70 year old dump that isn't even large enough in its current state to hold hockey..but...Geary, who also owns Ellis Park, gets a new OTB parlor in Owensboro as well.

Of course, this has sent Winnecke and the city of Evansville in full batcrap mode. They are publicly working feverishly to secure a new hockey team for the Ford Center. I have a friend who works at the Evansville Airport, and he has heard that Winnecke has asked the Airport Board to make every attempt possible to lure Allegant Airlines from Owensboro to Evansville. EVV currently has three commercial airlines, American, Delta and United, while Allegant is the only commercial carrier in OWB. Allegant already markets this as (Evansville). Losing Allegant would be a huge blow to OWB.

It's really sad that these cities can't work together for the common good of the region, as Evansville and Henderson appear to do. However, Mayor Ron seems to be incapable of that, as seen with his rather moronic attempt to relocate an already completed I-69 away from Evansville.

Regardless, things should be interesting in this region for awhile.

is this why evansville currently has 2 hockey teams?  is one leaving now?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on February 04, 2016, 07:20:25 AM
If I were planning the connection with the existing I-69 in Indiana to the Kentucky I-69, I would go as planned from about the 2 mile marker from I-69 in Indiana to the new terrain bridge as planned with the modified plan to bring the new road back into the Pennyrile near what was exit 79.  I would then route US 41 from its route through Evansville onto what was I-164 and duplex it and I-69 across the Ohio River on the toll bridge.  The existing bridges could be changed to an extended Alt US 41.  Matter of fact, the older of the two bridges could be decommissioned as carrying traffic, and be prepared for pedestrian traffic to tie into the long walking/biking trails that are becoming a part of Evansville/Newburgh IN.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 04, 2016, 10:51:33 AM
I live in Terre Haute and I had no idea that you could fly in and out of Evansville and Owensboro. I guess it makes sense though. Apparently you can fly to Orlando and St. Louis from Owensboro; and to Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, and Detroit from Evansville. I didn't know that so many people flew. I do know that Terre Haute has been trying to get airlines to come to our airport for a long time. We used to have flights I guess. We almost got Branson a few years ago, but it never happened for some reason. In all honesty Terre Haute is too close to Indianapolis Int'l for it to ever happen. I think people are obsessed with getting airlines to come to Terre Haute just because the airport is called Terre Haute Int'l Airport.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 04, 2016, 04:59:32 PM
That name Ron Geary sounds awfully familiar.

ADDENDUM -- Yep. He was secretary of the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet under Gov. John Y. Brown (1979-83).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Georgia on February 05, 2016, 05:00:18 PM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: kkt on February 05, 2016, 05:22:56 PM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

San Jose, California's, airport called itself "Norman Mineta International" when there were NO scheduled flights to any other countries.  Many Bay Area residents started calling it "Mineta Intergalactic," because it was just as intergalactic as it was international.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 06, 2016, 08:52:06 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 06, 2016, 11:12:24 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.

all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.

This has gotten way off track, but I would assume the Cape Air flights are on Cessna 402 aircraft that carry 8 or 9 passenges so I doubt that would be something worth going after. Not only that, but that is a pretty short distance for air travel - especially when I-64 connects directly to St. Louis. Indy airport hasn't had flights to St. Louis in years since St. Louis lost its hub status.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 06, 2016, 11:21:13 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

Allegiant flies out of KOWB I believe 3 days a week, so it is hardly regular service but it is quite handy for people in the Owensboro area if they want to save a hour driving to Evansville's airport on the other side of town from them.

Cape Air also flies out of Owensboro to St. Louis; that service is daily.

This has gotten way off track, but I would assume the Cape Air flights are on Cessna 402 aircraft that carry 8 or 9 passenges so I doubt that would be something worth going after. Not only that, but that is a pretty short distance for air travel - especially when I-64 connects directly to St. Louis. Indy airport hasn't had flights to St. Louis in years since St. Louis lost its hub status.

They are Cessnas.  It is about a 90-minute flight, and the time I took it, it saved me $200 over flying out of Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 06, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
interesting that you can't fly to indy, yes it's close by flying standards, but i still find it interesting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 06, 2016, 10:00:44 PM
I know USAir used to fly IND-EVV, because I've taken that flight, a long time ago.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 07, 2016, 06:47:26 AM
I know USAir used to fly IND-EVV, because I've taken that flight, a long time ago.

Not true anymore. No flights from IND to Cincy, St. Louis, or Cleveland either. The only short range ones now are to ORD - even SWA to Midway is no more. The flights to DTW seem to all be the small CRJs as Delta flies all big planes to ATL (including some 757s). MSP flights seem to be using regional jets more as well. In addition to the flights from IND to the major hubs, there are more non-stops to distant destinations like Las Vegas, San Francisco, Miami, LAX, and most of the big east coast and Florida cities, however.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 07, 2016, 07:17:16 PM
Why would anyone want to fly from Indy to Cincinnati or St. Louis? By the time you get to the airport, park, go through TSA theater, etc., you could drive to either city.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on February 07, 2016, 07:47:47 PM
Cincinnati was a Delta hub and St. Louis was a TWA/AA hub. Otherwise, no, you would not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on February 07, 2016, 09:38:28 PM
USAir had a focus city at IND in the late 80's. Just like CVG, but on a smaller scale.. Days of past..
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 07, 2016, 11:07:04 PM
Why would anyone want to fly from Indy to Cincinnati or St. Louis? By the time you get to the airport, park, go through TSA theater, etc., you could drive to either city.

I feel guilty for having nothing to say about the proposed I-69 bridge over the Ohio River, but I remember flying from Indy to Cincy back in 2009...to go to Las Vegas. Though I understand it no longer being possible. So yeah....that bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 07, 2016, 11:26:31 PM
Why would anyone want to fly from Indy to Cincinnati or St. Louis? By the time you get to the airport, park, go through TSA theater, etc., you could drive to either city.

I feel guilty for having nothing to say about the proposed I-69 bridge over the Ohio River, but I remember flying from Indy to Cincy back in 2009...to go to Las Vegas. Though I understand it no longer being possible. So yeah....that bridge.

When Terre Haute had flights back in the day I think they all went to Chicago.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on February 08, 2016, 11:00:16 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

San Jose, California's, airport called itself "Norman Mineta International" when there were NO scheduled flights to any other countries.  Many Bay Area residents started calling it "Mineta Intergalactic," because it was just as intergalactic as it was international.

My local airport (Appleton, WI - ATW) recently added a USCustoms office along with the 'international' moniker, too, done so to make life easier for the airport's major non-passenger related tenant, that being Gulfstream (the upper-end private airplane builder).  Now, their customers don't have to clear customs elsewhere when flying their airplanes in for service from outside of the USA.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on February 08, 2016, 11:07:34 AM
all it takes for an airport to have an International designation in the name is a US Customs office; so the term International in an airport name is pretty loose.

San Jose, California's, airport called itself "Norman Mineta International" when there were NO scheduled flights to any other countries.  Many Bay Area residents started calling it "Mineta Intergalactic," because it was just as intergalactic as it was international.

My local airport (Appleton, WI - ATW) recently added a USCustoms office along with the 'international' moniker, too, done so to make life easier for the airport's major non-passenger related tenant, that being Gulfstream (the upper-end private airplane builder).  Now, their customers don't have to clear customs elsewhere when flying their airplanes in for service from outside of the USA.

Mike

MacArthur Airport on Long Island's probably going this route as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 10, 2016, 12:24:57 PM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 10, 2016, 05:19:18 PM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2016, 06:02:52 PM

Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge

The one comment on that article cracks me up.  It urges Winnecke and Indiana to abandon the whole thing to Kentucky, saying "As far as Hoosiers are concerned, I-69 ends at the I-69/41 interchange."  Nice to speak for the whole state. 

The bridge will indeed be entirely within Kentucky, since sediment accretion on the inside of the river bend has shifted the river well south of where it was when the border was drawn, but not in a million years could I see that leading to Kentucky taking full ownership of the bridge cost (nor Indiana expecting it to).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 10, 2016, 07:10:24 PM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!


What's changed now is that with I-69 connected to SR-37 (and Indianapolis/I-69N) in Indiana and the Parkways being signed as I-69 in Kentucky, has introduced a forcing function to get the Ohio River Bridge done.  That forcing function of course being all of the traffic that is (or soon will be) generated by the completed sections of the route that will have no other option but to use the outdated US-41 bridges over the river. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on February 10, 2016, 09:06:08 PM
The bridge will indeed be entirely within Kentucky, since sediment accretion on the inside of the river bend has shifted the river well south of where it was when the border was drawn, but not in a million years could I see that leading to Kentucky taking full ownership of the bridge cost (nor Indiana expecting it to).
Isn't the preferred alternative to build new bridges far enough east of the existing US 41 bridges that the border would be back on the north shore of the river?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 10, 2016, 09:56:56 PM

The bridge will indeed be entirely within Kentucky, since sediment accretion on the inside of the river bend has shifted the river well south of where it was when the border was drawn, but not in a million years could I see that leading to Kentucky taking full ownership of the bridge cost (nor Indiana expecting it to).
Isn't the preferred alternative to build new bridges far enough east of the existing US 41 bridges that the border would be back on the north shore of the river?

The diagrams posted in this thread show the crossing to be about at this location, (https://goo.gl/maps/3S4vK4dMHwx) so, no, not quite.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 11, 2016, 08:46:55 AM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!


What's changed now is that with I-69 connected to SR-37 (and Indianapolis/I-69N) in Indiana and the Parkways being signed as I-69 in Kentucky, has introduced a forcing function to get the Ohio River Bridge done.  That forcing function of course being all of the traffic that is (or soon will be) generated by the completed sections of the route that will have no other option but to use the outdated US-41 bridges over the river. 

I don't imagine traffic will increase on I-69 south of Evansville for quite some time, at least until it is complete to Memphis. However, maybe traffic would increase if motorists utilize I-69 to US 51 to I-155 to I-55 to reach Memphis, since most of US 51 between Fulton and Dyersburg is already interstate standard.

Either way, I think the political pressure will increase to close the gap since I-69 bumps up against it from both directions, and you can then say that I-69 is complete from Kentucky to Canada.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2016, 10:25:14 AM
Looks like there may be some movement by Indiana and Kentucky on restarting efforts to build the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River.  Discussion is ongoing with Governor Pence of Indiana and Governor Bevin of Kentucky to secure funding to re-start environmental studies that will eventually determine where the bridge and its approaches will be built.  Construction is still a long way off though.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/winnecke-asks-for-impact-study-on-new-i-69-bridge
We can see a time not too far off when I-69 will be complete in both Indiana and Kentucky, except for the bridge. Obvious gaps have a way of attracting attention!


What's changed now is that with I-69 connected to SR-37 (and Indianapolis/I-69N) in Indiana and the Parkways being signed as I-69 in Kentucky, has introduced a forcing function to get the Ohio River Bridge done.  That forcing function of course being all of the traffic that is (or soon will be) generated by the completed sections of the route that will have no other option but to use the outdated US-41 bridges over the river. 

I don't imagine traffic will increase on I-69 south of Evansville for quite some time, at least until it is complete to Memphis. However, maybe traffic would increase if motorists utilize I-69 to US 51 to I-155 to I-55 to reach Memphis, since most of US 51 between Fulton and Dyersburg is already interstate standard.

Either way, I think the political pressure will increase to close the gap since I-69 bumps up against it from both directions, and you can then say that I-69 is complete from Kentucky to Canada.

With increased traffic on the US-41 bridges, the deterioration of those bridges will accelerate, which will add to the sense of urgency to get the I-69 bridge funded and built.  It's either that, or pay almost the same amount to overhaul or replace the US-41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 11, 2016, 10:34:40 AM
One bridge is 80 or so years old and although it is in good condition now, it will need either rehabilitation or replacement by the time construction nears for Interstate 69. The other is 50 or so years old and is also in good condition, but it will need rehabilitation in 10 to 20 years. Isn't the goal of an Interstate 69 bypass to keep the newer US 41 bridge in service for local traffic - and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2016, 11:11:23 AM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 11, 2016, 11:26:56 AM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2016, 12:46:10 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

Maybe the solution would be building an 8-lane bridge that not only carries I-69 but replaces the US-41 bridges.  Kill two birds with one stone?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 11, 2016, 01:16:23 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?

On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 11, 2016, 01:23:11 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?

On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.

I suspect the good folks in E-Ville and Henderson wouldn't be particularly happy with those options.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 11, 2016, 01:26:06 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

Maybe the solution would be building an 8-lane bridge that not only carries I-69 but replaces the US-41 bridges.  Kill two birds with one stone?

I think initially the plan was for the new I-69 bridge to be six lanes, but in order to make the bridge more palatable the design was reduced to four lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 11, 2016, 01:27:44 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

Maybe the solution would be building an 8-lane bridge that not only carries I-69 but replaces the US-41 bridges.  Kill two birds with one stone?

I think initially the plan was for the new I-69 bridge to be six lanes, but in order to make the bridge more palatable the design was reduced to four lanes.

That and money savings.
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?

?

This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?

On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.

I think it's helpful here to come back to this map:

(http://i.imgur.com/h8WNT.jpg)

I'm not sure what the residential neighborhood is you're talking about, and there is certainly no inner city at that point.  Alignment 1 swings up through the empty peninsula, west of the residential area south of the Lloyd where Burdette Park is, and from there it's all rural Posey County.  There are houses, sure, but not many, and a lot of space between them in most cases.  If it were being done now they'd probably co-opt some part of the University Parkway ROW anyway (I don't think any of it existed when this map was made).  The construction of that road is some evidence that it would not really need to plow through much of anything.  The same is more or less true for 1A.

As for how the route would be handled in replacing 41 over the twin bridges, I've never seen any details about elevating it or anything else, but that option does not even seem to appear on this map.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on February 11, 2016, 03:20:44 PM
and the goal of an inner-city Interstate 69 route to replace both crossings?
?
This is not even in the broad 2002 map of possibilities, nor does it seem like it fills a need the present plan does not.  Evansville and especially Henderson are not that big. Where are you getting this from?
On a map of the alignments, there was one or two that used the existing US 41 by elevating the interstate over the existing facility and another that plows through a residential neighborhood to the west/north.

This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.msg2106352#msg2106352) briefly discusses the western, single crossing, alternatives from the January, 2014 Feasibility Study:

a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared .... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a .
An interesting aspect of the January, 2014 Feasibility Study is that all of the alternatives except for Alternative 1a would involve closing the Twin Bridges and building a new bridge (p. 18/82 of pdf; p. ES11 of document):
Quote
In this Feasibility Study, seven alternatives and some variations were examined at the concept level. All but one of these alternatives (1a) would close the existing US 41 twin bridges over the Ohio River northeast of Henderson and construct a new bridge.
The goals of the Feasibility Study were identified as follows (p. 21/82 of pdf; p. 2 of document):
Quote
The following goals were identified for the project Feasibility Study:
* Shorten the project from its original concept so that as much of the existing Breathitt Parkway and US 41 are used for the future I-69 as possible.
* Provide for a single river crossing for US 41 and I-69.
* Provide access from I-69 to the businesses along US 41.
After looking at the comments from the September 8 Evansville meeting and seeing BridgeLink's favored alternative, it seems like the notion of closing the Twin Bridges and having a single crossing I-69 bridge is a non-starter for most people.

Here is a map showing the single crossing alternatives and BridgeLink's preferred multiple crossings alternative (p. 66/82 of pdf; p. 47 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/1YMqwHf.jpg)
Title: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
That's helpful context.  If this was the source of the western alignment question, then yes, it certainly does plow through residential Henderson.  I suspect my answer is based on a different stage of alternatives than the post I was responding to.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 12, 2016, 11:23:02 AM
The alternatives going right through Henderson are probably the "if Indiana and Kentucky can't afford a bridge" options. If they go that route I am willing to bet that the US 41 bridges are used for I-69 until the US 41 bridges actually "need" replaced another 25 years down the road. In that case they will build the new bridge for I-69/US 41 just west of the current US 41 bridges.

Hate to say I told you so, but even Indiana and Kentucky know that building a new interstate bridge won't be cheap. Upgrading 41 through Henderson and between the river and former I-164 will probably be the option they end up chosing. They've been inching closer and closer to that alternative.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 12, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
Henderson would be pissed to have 69 go over 41 through town.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 12, 2016, 02:11:19 PM

Henderson would be pissed to have 69 go over 41 through town.

It would also be very expensive.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 12, 2016, 02:35:34 PM
Unless they rip right through Henderson they basically have to route it east and build new bridges. There is no way that all the tree huggers would allow I-69 to go through the Audubon State Park. Even I am against running it through there and I am not a tree hugger. The only way I'd support 69 going through the state park is if was placed north of SR 414.

I really do believe that the running it right through Henderson alternatives are the using the existing US 41 bridges for I-69 alternative.

It looks like they are considering putting a tight diamond along the Henderson strip or whatever you want to call it, probably at Watson Lane. I wonder if there is enough room for a frontage road on both sides.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on February 12, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
I drew on Scribble Maps how I'd design I-69 if it ran right through Henderson. Basically I put up a bunch of walls, an interchange at KY 414, frontage roads along 41, and I had 41 go over Watson Lane. If you view my map on scribble maps you will basically have to zoom in to either 1 or 2 out to see what I have done.

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

Key
Red= Barrier wall
Blue= new bridge
Green= new road (interchange ramps, frontage roads, etc)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: EngineerTM on February 12, 2016, 06:51:02 PM
US 41 bridges need to be replaced eventually, also, since the new bridge is likely to be tolled, they must exist to provide a free alternative.  I hope 41 doesn't get downgraded around the bridge to being 2 lanes wide.

I have colleagues who are closer to the decision-makers in this process than I am.  What they have told me so far is that Kentucky would like to "retire" the older of the two bridges and convert it to non-vehicular use.  Then, the other bridge would be converted to carry one lane of traffic in each direction with the objective of directing all commercial and freight traffic to the new I-69 bridge(s).  If Kentucky went that route, the discussions also included posting restrictions on the type of traffic allowed.  The discussions have also included how much Kentucky should spend on the next round of maintenance scheduled for the twin bridges.  If there is real movement towards getting the new bridge (or bridges) built sooner as opposed to later, then Kentucky could scale back on the $$ spent for the upcoming maintenance.

Of course this could change.  However, if the new I-69 bridge(s) are tolled, it would make sense to "encourage" commercial and freight traffic to use the new route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 14, 2016, 01:13:53 AM
It's not been that many years ago that Kentucky did a crapload of work on the bridges. I remember driving across when they had a setup that involved only having one lane open on one bridge. Surely they can't need extensive, expensive work so soon afterwards.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 14, 2016, 05:49:54 AM
It's not been that many years ago that Kentucky did a crapload of work on the bridges. I remember driving across when they had a setup that involved only having one lane open on one bridge. Surely they can't need extensive, expensive work so soon afterwards.

They're to the point now where some sort of maintenance work is being done every few months. Indeed, within the past few months, I noticed new weight limit signs on the NB bridge that I think lowered the limits by a little bit.

The work I think you're referring to is the most recent repaint job -- which didn't hold up: http://www.courierpress.com/news/local/twin-bridges-rusting-just-five-to-six-years-after-painting-ep-443138365-326176461.html
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 14, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
If one of the US 41 bridges were converted to non-vehicle traffic use, it would still cost quite a bit of money to keep it maintained. I am not sure how much less it would cost, though.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 14, 2016, 06:47:05 PM

If one of the US 41 bridges were converted to non-vehicle traffic use, it would still cost quite a bit of money to keep it maintained. I am not sure how much less it would cost, though.

I don't either, but the only comparably large bridge I know that's maintained for pedestrian use is the Poughkeepsie Bridge in New York. 

There's a burgeoning interest in Evansville in multi-use paths (and physical activity in general–it was infamously named the country's obesest metro area a few years back) but this is not only not near existing trails, it would probably cost a lot per user. 

It would be a spectacular ride, though.  The Ohio River is breathtakingly wide.  It would be a tourist draw if done right.

Is there a precedent for pedestrian/bike toll bridges?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on February 14, 2016, 07:26:37 PM
I believe you have to pay a small toll to walk across the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls between Ontario and New York.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tidecat on February 14, 2016, 08:00:35 PM
I should note that just upstream in Louisville, the operator of Waterfront Park is publicly asking for state assistance. Apparently one of the pledges for lighting the Big 4 bridge fell through.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 14, 2016, 08:18:06 PM

I should note that just upstream in Louisville, the operator of Waterfront Park is publicly asking for state assistance. Apparently one of the pledges for lighting the Big 4 bridge fell through.

Oh, yeah.  I forgot about that bridge in Louisville. Louisville's a lot bigger than Evansville and Henderson, though.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 14, 2016, 12:03:52 PM
the P3 legislation did not pass and this March 27 blog (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/03/potential-for-tolls-didn-t-kill-brent-spence.html?page=all) comments on the reasons why the Kentucky Senate failed to pass the P3 legislation:
Quote
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce CEO Trey Grayson, a former Kentucky secretary of state and experienced Frankfort hand ....
“The wild card will be what is the new governor’s position on the Brent Spence Bridge as a piece of this,”  Grayson said.
This April 2 article (http://www.courierpress.com/gleaner/news/ridley-says-kentucky-needs-bipartisan-cooperation-in-legislature_01404955) reports that Western Kentucky officals want P3 as an option for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge, even if Northern Kentucky officials are opposed to tolls:
Quote
Sen. Dorsey Ridley .... said ....
"If they will at least come across the aisle and have a conversation with us we could do that. We could have passed the P3 (public-private partnership) legislation, in my estimation, and allow us to move forward in building the bridge we need on I-69."
Kyndle CEO and President Brad Schneider agreed
, but said "in Kentucky, sometimes our differences are regional more than they are by party.
"Next session, let the folks in Northern Kentucky know – while they figure out what they want to do – we'd love to move forward here," Schneider said. To fund bridges and other infrastructure in Western Kentucky, he said, "P3 would be a great tool in the toolbox." ....
Rep. Suzanne Miles, R-Owensboro
....
expressed disappointment in the failure of the P3 legislation. "The main thing is for us to get that (Interstate 69) bridge. P3 is one of the best things for that opportunity."

This April 12 article (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/04/12/new-law-makes-brent-spence-bridge-tolls-illegal.html) reports that, this year, on April 8, recently elected Gov. Bevin signed legislation authorizing public private partnerships (P3s) to help fund transportation projects in Kentucky, except for interstate bridges connecting Ohio and Kentucky:

Quote
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed a law on Friday that bans tolls on interstate bridges that connect Ohio and Kentucky ....
In reality, what was known as House Bill 309 makes it possible for private money to be used to fund public projects except in the case of any highway connecting Ohio and Kentucky without authorization from the General Assembly. That essentially rules out the option of tolling for the Brent Spence Bridge.

Since the I-69 Ohio River bridge project would connect Kentucky and Indiana, a P3 incorporating tolls may be considered as part of the funding solution for that project. This March 29 article (http://m.14news.com/14news/db/345625/content/qSxY5GeW), written in anticipation of Gov. Bevin's signature on the legislation, reports on the importance of the legislation in advancing the project:

Quote
Justin Groenert, from the Southwest Indiana Chamber, knows this bill could pave the way for the all-important I-69 bridge over the Ohio.
"It gives Kentucky another avenue to finance the bridge," Groenert said. "We're confident that he'll sign it - so this is a really big win for for the long term in terms of getting this project started."

Legislators and Tri-State officials have been trying to get a bill like this passed for the last three legislative sessions.

In sum, no tolls allowed on the Brent Spence bridge in Northern Kentucky, but tolls would be allowed on the I-69 Ohio River bridge in Western Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on April 14, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
Because politics.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2016, 04:24:22 PM
You can't divorce politics from anything, in my view.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 14, 2016, 09:53:14 PM
There's a loud anti-toll contingent in northern Kentucky, especially Covington. My guess is that if a bill to toll a Brent Spence Bridge replacement was introduced in the General Assembly, it would pass. The NKY delegation isn't that influential.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 15, 2016, 09:13:13 AM
There's a loud anti-toll contingent in northern Kentucky, especially Covington. My guess is that if a bill to toll a Brent Spence Bridge replacement was introduced in the General Assembly, it would pass. The NKY delegation isn't that influential.

Is there any chance of a bill making it to the General Assembly in the near future?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 15, 2016, 03:04:59 PM
There's a loud anti-toll contingent in northern Kentucky, especially Covington. My guess is that if a bill to toll a Brent Spence Bridge replacement was introduced in the General Assembly, it would pass. The NKY delegation isn't that influential.

Is there any chance of a bill making it to the General Assembly in the near future?

Not until next year. Today is the last day of this year's session.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 04:53:14 PM
What is the likelihood of such a bill being proposed in the near future?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2016, 11:32:52 PM
Depends on whether or not the two states want to move forward with building a bridge and putting tolls on it. There's still a coalition that persists in claiming that an outer eastern/southeastern loop (with a new bridge somewhere upstream from Newport) would be cheaper than a parallel to the Brent Spence and all the work that will have to be done to the interchanges at either end.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on April 17, 2016, 06:14:08 PM
Depends on whether or not the two states want to move forward with building a bridge and putting tolls on it. There's still a coalition that persists in claiming that an outer eastern/southeastern loop (with a new bridge somewhere upstream from Newport) would be cheaper than a parallel to the Brent Spence and all the work that will have to be done to the interchanges at either end.

Would this also be upstream of the I-275 east bridge? Either way, a new alignment upstream of Newport doesn't really seem to fix the problem.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 18, 2016, 02:56:12 PM
Depends on whether or not the two states want to move forward with building a bridge and putting tolls on it. There's still a coalition that persists in claiming that an outer eastern/southeastern loop (with a new bridge somewhere upstream from Newport) would be cheaper than a parallel to the Brent Spence and all the work that will have to be done to the interchanges at either end.

Would this also be upstream of the I-275 east bridge? Either way, a new alignment upstream of Newport doesn't really seem to fix the problem.

Yes, and I originally meant to mention that. Detractors are pushing the fact that supporters of this project include real estate developers who would like better access to land in Campbell County, Ky.

I just wonder how far people, especially commercial vehicle drivers, are willing to go out of their way to avoid delays and backups. Last time I came south on I-75 through Cincinnati, I went around the east side on I-275 to avoid traffic heading to a Bengals game, but I might have done that anyway because I'm a roadgeek. I just wonder if a trucker would think the extra mileage to go around on I-275, or an even more remote outer bypass, would be worth it.

I got my fill of I-75 in Ohio when I ran into backups in the afternoon in the vicinity of the Norwood Lateral, the Lockland split and the Glendale areas on my way to some meet several years ago (possibly Fort Wayne). So, the next time I would have been going in that direction (the most recent Dayton meet) I opted for a routing of basically KY 11, US 68 and OH 73 to avoid Cincinnati completely. But again, that wouldn't be unusual for me to do.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 20, 2016, 02:30:29 PM
Here is a snip from the Projects List of the 2016 Recommended Highway Plan (p. 51/119 of pdf) (http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Documents/2016RecommendedProjectListing.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/EVq5Q5g.png)

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/news/state-lawmakers-reflect-on-pension-efforts-i-69-funding-30d83296-09bc-14c9-e053-0100007f28a4-376277391.html) reports on a post-legislative session review and includes the scheduled timeline for progress on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge:

Quote
Pensions funds, I-69 funding and more financial transparency were among the topics Tuesday as state legislators came together for "Coffee with Kyndle: A Legislative Review Breakfast."
Panel participants included senators Dorsey Ridley and Joe Bowen, and representatives Jim Gooch Jr., Suzanne Miles and David Watkins ....
"The I-69 (bridge) corridor is alive and well, and the road plan we put before Gov. Matt Bevin is better than I ever dreamed," Ridley explained. "Simply because in 2016, we have $2.8 million for the environment survey; in 2017, we have $6 million for the design phase; then in 2018, there's $20 million for right of way acquisition; and in 2019 there's money to do the utility moving. These are all things that have to happen before we turn the first spade of dirt ... I do have to give Gov. Bevin credit because he pushed the original environmental piece forward, and the rest of it came rapidly."



the Executive Summary of the 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for I-69 between Evansville and Henderson (http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/executive%20summary.pdf) ....
Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative (page 23/23 of pdf; page S-23 of document)
Steven Ross, Transportation Engineering Branch Manager at KYTC, just posted the entire Ohio River Bridge DEIS.  Links to sections of the DEIS can found in the "Henderson to Evansville - Proposed Interstate 69" section at the bottom of this page:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/I-69.aspx
a January, 2014 I-69 SIU 4 in Henderson County Feasibility Study (http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Planning%20Studies%20and%20Reports/I-69%20SIU%204_FEASIBILITY%20STUDY_FINAL.pdf) that KYTC prepared ... BridgeLink's favored alternative is known as Alternative 1a .... (p. 51/82 of pdf; p. 32 of document)
....
This January 28 article (http://www.thegleaner.com/news/schneider-gives-update-on-kyndle--2a2eabeb-ae1b-79b9-e053-0100007f7872-366903111.html) reports on Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider's belief that the environmental study will focus on the above two corridors:
Quote
Kyndle CEO Brad Schneider ....
The governor bumped up the environmental impact study on the bridge from 2018 to 2017. He also added $300,000 to the project and added $41 million for pre-construction work in years 2019-21.
Schneider thinks this signals that Bevin is going to update the environmental impact study on the old route, examine the new route and do a total revenue study that will jibe with the one done in Indiana last fall.
It will be interesting to see whether KYTC will be required to study additional corridors as part of the environmental process, or, in the alternative, whether information gleaned from the 2004 DEIS and the 2014 SIU 4 Henderson County Feasibility Study will allow KYTC to immediately focus on the above two corridors.

Having the environmental study in 2016, design in 2017, and ROW acquisition in 2018 seems like an aggressive timetable.  I'm guessing that FHWA will somehow allow use of the previous studies to be incorporated into a streamlined environmental process.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2016, 02:49:37 PM
The sooner the better.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 20, 2016, 03:07:12 PM

Having the environmental study in 2016, design in 2017, and ROW acquisition in 2018 seems like an aggressive timetable.  I'm guessing that FHWA will somehow allow use of the previous studies to be incorporated into a streamlined environmental process.

Wouldn't Indiana have to pay for some of this stuff? Like the design and environmental studies and whatever right of way they have on their side?

It would be cool if they can actually follow that schedule so that the bridge and Section 6 will be finished approximately the same time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on April 21, 2016, 12:15:53 PM
Funding is guaranteed only for the current biennium. Anything listed as occurring in 2018 and beyond is not set in stone, and can be pushed back farther.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on April 21, 2016, 12:25:35 PM
The best way to streamline the environmental process is to do a supplemental EIS. Some environmental studies will need to be refreshed to see if the original conclusions are still valid, and it would probably take at least a year since some species are seasonal in their survey requirements (sometimes only a one month window within a year). But that way, they wouldn't need to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak.  But if they want to look at something completely different, it will probably take extra time.
Title: After Setbacks, I-69 Bridge Project Gaining Momentum
Post by: mukade on June 24, 2016, 09:23:13 PM
Quote
Local leaders are extremely hopeful and optimistic ahead of Indiana Governor Mike Pence's 'major announcement' regarding I-69 next week. The announcement, which is to be held in the shadow of the Twin Bridges, is expected to center around the possibility of an I-69 bridge.

After Setbacks, I-69 Bridge Project Gaining Momentum (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/after-setbacks-i-69-bridge-project-gaining-momentum) (tristatehomepage.com)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 27, 2016, 09:48:23 AM
https://twitter.com/69BridgeLink/status/746060035197898752

Ellis Park is actually in Kentucky (despite being on the N. Side of the Ohio River), so I'd expect Bevin to be there as well.

I think a P3 announcement may actually be happening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on June 27, 2016, 10:32:45 AM
About time that thing is finally going to get built!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 27, 2016, 01:47:24 PM
https://twitter.com/69BridgeLink/status/746060035197898752

Ellis Park is actually in Kentucky (despite being on the N. Side of the Ohio River), so I'd expect Bevin to be there as well.

I think a P3 announcement may actually be happening.

There's been no publicity at all on this in Kentucky regarding the governor's involvement, or what might be on the agenda.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 28, 2016, 09:28:46 AM
https://twitter.com/69BridgeLink/status/746060035197898752

Ellis Park is actually in Kentucky (despite being on the N. Side of the Ohio River), so I'd expect Bevin to be there as well.

I think a P3 announcement may actually be happening.

There's been no publicity at all on this in Kentucky regarding the governor's involvement, or what might be on the agenda.

I guess it is an election year for Pence, but I would think this would be bigger than just INDOT kicking in some environmental/design work money.

Here's a little more detail on Bridgelink's Facebook page that they posted last night (https://www.facebook.com/Bridgelink-164632647077987)

(http://i.imgur.com/wgx4TTm.jpg)

Section 5 is under construction and Section 6 is in the design phase, so there's really nothing else to announce except the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on June 28, 2016, 01:19:31 PM
If the SIU 3 work is coming in under budget, Indiana might have some more money to kick in toward environmental, design, and ROW for the SIU 4 bridge. That's all I can figure unless they got one of the FASTLANE grants that haven't been announced yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 30, 2016, 09:49:52 AM
http://www.cityofhendersonky.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=186

Quote
HENDERSON, Ky. -- An announcement described as having a "major I-69 infrastructure" update from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin is set for Thursday at Ellis Park.
According to a news release from BridgeLink, the announcement will take place at 1:30 p.m. in the south parking lot at Ellis Park.

If the SIU 3 work is coming in under budget, Indiana might have some more money to kick in toward environmental, design, and ROW for the SIU 4 bridge. That's all I can figure unless they got one of the FASTLANE grants that haven't been announced yet.

If the tolling study turned out well, tolls should be able to pay for most of the bridge (based on the Bridgelink redesign which is ~$600 million cheaper).  The money should add up in theory.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2016, 12:17:29 PM
Kentucky announced Bevin's participation on Tuesday. Pence's participation was announced at least a week ahead of time. I find the states' different approaches to announcing gubernatorial events interesting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 30, 2016, 01:12:15 PM
I have never had a problem traversing the Ohio on the current US 41.  What is the big deal?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Sykotyk on June 30, 2016, 01:57:34 PM
I have never had a problem traversing the Ohio on the current US 41.  What is the big deal?

They're probably not going to turn it into a freeway on that alignment, which makes connecting I-69 in KY and IN impossible.

However, if their goal is to toll it, it better be a cheap toll, or else way too many shunpikers are going to follow US41. And with US41 still free, I can't imagine truck traffic not wanting to just jog west a few miles, cross the free bridge, and then get back on I-69. Especially with US41 north of Evansville having a lot of truck related facilities near the airport, making all trucks take the toll bridge seems difficult to pull off.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 30, 2016, 02:25:32 PM
Edit:
Here's the archived video


Basically just announced design/study is happening.  Will reply later if they send out a press release somewhere else.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on June 30, 2016, 03:33:25 PM
They're probably not going to turn it into a freeway on that alignment, which makes connecting I-69 in KY and IN impossible.

However, if their goal is to toll it, it better be a cheap toll, or else way too many shunpikers are going to follow US41. And with US41 still free, I can't imagine truck traffic not wanting to just jog west a few miles, cross the free bridge, and then get back on I-69. Especially with US41 north of Evansville having a lot of truck related facilities near the airport, making all trucks take the toll bridge seems difficult to pull off.

Put a weight restriction on the older bridge, toll the I-69 bridge only in that direction, and voila!

Here's a story from the Courier and Press (http://www.courierpress.com/news/local/live-i-69-bridge-announcement-366c7219-cd0c-78fb-e053-0100007f3f97-385060261.html) on the announcement, which seems rather short on details.

Quote
State officials from Indiana and Kentucky announced the commission of study and design work for an Interstate 69 bridge between Evansville and Henderson.

The cost for the project was estimated by BridgeLink officials as about $850 million for a four-lane bridge over the Ohio River. It would include "modest tolls."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: bmeiser on June 30, 2016, 03:44:47 PM
That's actually a good summary of the announcement today.  It was 30 minutes of BSing and thanking everybody, 2 minutes of Pence announcing what that article summarizes, and 6:53 minutes of Bevin trying to be a comedian.  The whole 38:53 video is at the bottom of the article if anybody is interested.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2016, 03:49:20 PM
I watched the live stream of the event. Basically, they're starting design on the new bridge. Indiana will be the lead agency.

As to why the existing US 41 needs to be bypassed, Gov. Bevin made a humorous observation about it, talking about all the gas stations along "The Strip" and how they are all selling gas for the same price, and when one raises its price, the rest follow suit. This stretch cannot be easily turned into a freeway. The bridges, especially the older one, don't meet interstate standards.

As for eliminating shunpikers, it's easy -- you ban truck traffic on the US 41 bridges. And enforce the ban. Kentucky can do that since the bridges are entirely in Kentucky, another geographical oddity that was noted during the event.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on June 30, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I think its totally ridiculous not allowing trucks to use the US 41 bridges. The truck drivers didn't tell the government to build a new toll bridge that they (IN and KY) cannot afford. I think truckers and anybody else should have the freedom to choose whichever bridges they want to use.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: alecscradle on June 30, 2016, 07:07:08 PM
I don't think they'd ban trucks from the US 41 Bridge.  They typically only do that if a bridge is structurally deficient (though that might happen soon with this bridge).  I think it wouldn't make much sense for trucks to use US 41 even with a toll.  US 41 adds about 5-6 miles compared to the I-69 routing.  Plus US 41 North of US 60 is just a 45 mph 4 lane road with a few lights along the stretch.  And the Bridge is only at 55 mph.  My guess is going up 41 would take 15-20 min longer, which I don't think is worth it for most truckers.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on June 30, 2016, 08:33:59 PM
I would not be shocked that some years in the future after the I-69 crossing is complete, that the older bridge may be closed if there are structural issues and US 41 narrowed back down to two-lane traffic across the river.  In the presentation today, it was hinted at where one of the officials (I think Gov. Pence) said that at least one US 41 bridge would be maintained for local traffic.  That would certainaly make a tolled I-69 bridge more attractive for through traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 30, 2016, 08:37:04 PM
I would not be shocked that some years in the future after the I-69 crossing is complete, that the older bridge may be closed if there are structural issues and US 41 narrowed back down to two-lane traffic across the river.  In the presentation today, it was hinted at where one of the officials (I think Gov. Pence) said that at least one US 41 bridge would be maintained for local traffic.  That would certainaly make a tolled I-69 bridge more attractive for through traffic.

I've heard that the old bridge will be a ped bridge when it get time to repair it.  In a perfect world, they'd replace that one too, I wonder how much traffic will drop off on 41 after 69 crosses the ohio.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on June 30, 2016, 11:01:45 PM
I think its totally ridiculous not allowing trucks to use the US 41 bridges. The truck drivers didn't tell the government to build a new toll bridge that they (IN and KY) cannot afford. I think truckers and anybody else should have the freedom to choose whichever bridges they want to use.

"Local access only"

 :nod:

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 01, 2016, 08:34:23 AM
Here's the press release they sent out (http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?view=EventDetails&eventidn=249028&information_id=246752&type=&syndicate=syndicate)

Quote
Indiana, Kentucky Governors Launch I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project

Henderson, KY — Indiana Governor Mike Pence and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin today signed a Memorandum of Agreement to launch the I-69 Ohio River Crossing project. The states announced a combined commitment of about $17 million in their capital plans to advance project development.

 “As the Crossroads of America, we know that roads mean jobs here in the Hoosier state,”  said Governor Pence. “The partnership we are announcing today is a significant step in completing the vision of I-69 that will strengthen our transportation network and support economic investment and opportunity for generations of Hoosiers to come.”

Indiana and Kentucky will seek innovations from the private sector in expediting preliminary design and the required environmental review, with both states splitting costs and oversight. The MOA signed today authorizes the Indiana Department of Transportation to publish a formal request for proposals later this summer.

 “I-69 is opening up Western Kentucky like never before,”  said Governor Bevin. “Advancing the Ohio River Crossing will continue to build on that momentum. This additional north-south trunk will invite investment and spark further job growth in Kentucky. Our partnership will pay dividends for the entire Commonwealth.”

The environmental review and preliminary design will collect public input and study potential routes to connect the existing I-69 sections, the Robert D. Orr Highway south of Evansville and the upgraded Edward T. Breathitt Pennyrile Parkway south of Henderson. The review will also consider and collect public input on funding sources to build the project. Working cooperatively with the Federal Highway Administration, the states anticipate it will take about three years to complete the review and reach conclusions for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing route.

 For additional information about the I-69 Ohio River Crossing project, visit: www.I69Crossing.indot.in.gov.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 01, 2016, 08:38:33 AM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 01, 2016, 10:41:37 AM
So, what kind of time frame are we looking at?

Planning and design will take x.

Putting out bids and aquiring the right of way will take y.

Construction will take z.

x+y+z=?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 01, 2016, 11:43:50 AM
Has an EIS been conducted for the route?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 01, 2016, 12:21:34 PM
Has an EIS been conducted for the route?

Crud, I forgot to add that to my equation...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: slorydn1 on July 01, 2016, 01:38:26 PM
Oh yeah and don't forget to add "n squared"  (the number of frivolous NIMBY lawsuits x the time it takes [in years] for those suits to make their way through the process) to your equation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 01, 2016, 02:10:31 PM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.

Henderson is very supportive of building the I-69 bridge and completing the link. They probably expect the benefits to outweigh any negatives that might come from diverting through traffic off US 41.

I've been on the "Strip" section of US 41 a few times during busy parts of the day. It stinks. There's a reason everyone hates Breezewood.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 01, 2016, 02:56:44 PM
I thought they already had been planning this for years? Why is there going to be a 3 year EIS?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 01, 2016, 03:23:27 PM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.

Henderson is very supportive of building the I-69 bridge and completing the link. They probably expect the benefits to outweigh any negatives that might come from diverting through traffic off US 41.

I've been on the "Strip" section of US 41 a few times during busy parts of the day. It stinks. There's a reason everyone hates Breezewood.

I have never had any problem with this section.  It could be that I always patronize businesses in Henderson.  I think I have always stopped in Henderson for some reason or another.  If I-69 was complete through there I seriously doubt that I would stop there.  I even done business there when my destination was Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 01, 2016, 03:48:09 PM
I thought they already had been planning this for years? Why is there going to be a 3 year EIS?

environmental permitting processes are fucking annoying and take forever!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 02, 2016, 06:03:53 PM
I thought they already had been planning this for years? Why is there going to be a 3 year EIS?

The old EIS was too expensive.  The Bridgelink group estimated another route + changes to bridge design to be $600 million cheaper.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mukade on August 02, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Quote
A southern Indiana man who was once in charge of getting I-69 built now has a new challenge. Indiana Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner Sam Sarvis is now in charge of a single project: getting the bridge built on I-69 connecting Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky.

If you remember the aggressive construction schedule for sections 1-3, Sam Sarvis was the one in charge so I think this is good news.

New challenge for I-69 ramrod: Building new Evansville-Henderson, Ky., bridge (http://indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=235&ArticleID=84795) (Indiana Economic Digest)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: madbengalsfan85 on August 22, 2016, 06:17:53 AM
It doesn't seem possible that the 69 bridge would happen before the Brent Spence replacement; but somehow, that's exactly where things are
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on August 22, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
Henderson needs to get on the Breezewood bandwagon now.  If I were rgovernor  I would like the traffic to slow down and take a break in KENTUCKY.  Building the bridge will only cause tax dollars to drive away.

Henderson is very supportive of building the I-69 bridge and completing the link. They probably expect the benefits to outweigh any negatives that might come from diverting through traffic off US 41.

I've been on the "Strip" section of US 41 a few times during busy parts of the day. It stinks. There's a reason everyone hates Breezewood.

I have never had any problem with this section.  It could be that I always patronize businesses in Henderson.  I think I have always stopped in Henderson for some reason or another.  If I-69 was complete through there I seriously doubt that I would stop there.  I even done business there when my destination was Evansville.

The problem is much greater than patronizing a few convenience stores when a tourist is passing through. The Evansville-Henderson metro is by far the largest metro on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single highway crossing. Many people rely on this bridge as a sole link between work and home, with the overwhelming percentage being Henderson residents working in Evansville. Try being a single mom working in Evansville, getting off work and rushing to get your child at school or daycare, only to find the bridge blocked with another accident. Now imagine an ambulance with the same dilemma. These aren't just random occurrences.

I also think Henderson has the potential to benefit the most in terms of residential growth. The current growth here is in Newburgh to the east of Evansville, and the northern parts of Vanderburgh County. Henderson has been somewhat stagnant. With much lower utilities, lower taxes and a decent school system, Henderson could actually become a very attractive place for new residents with sufficient access to Evansville.

All of this far outweighs the few dollars dumped at a gas station or fast food joint by an occasional tourists passing through on the strip.
[/quote]
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 22, 2016, 02:31:47 PM
the environmental team will be selected soon.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 22, 2016, 04:36:20 PM
Always keep in mind that not only are the current US 41 twin bridges the only crossing between Evansville IN/Henderson KY, the bridges themselves are fairly old with one pushing 75 years.  They are also a main artery north and south with a lot of traffic carried on both.  I could see additional traffic (that's why I recommend a six lane I-69 bridge) with its completion since you could very well see some current I-65 South traffic take I-69 to Pennyrile (I-124) to I-24 to Nashville to get around Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:46:59 PM
Whoa! When did the first 34 miles of the Pennyrile Parkway get designated Interstate 124? I thought the only existing 124 was the unsigned one in Chattanooga?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on August 22, 2016, 08:06:30 PM
I think I-124 was a typo.  The remainder of the Pennyrile Parkway is still the Pennyrile Parkway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on August 23, 2016, 12:22:42 AM
I think I-124 was a typo.  The remainder of the Pennyrile Parkway is still the Pennyrile Parkway.

I thought it was going to be I-169.  :confused: Or did that bill never pass?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 23, 2016, 01:38:09 PM
They should designate it as I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 23, 2016, 01:39:52 PM
The Southern Pennyrile has not been designated as I-124, it's just that a group from KY have been pushing in that direction, so I thought that I would just humor them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 23, 2016, 01:40:35 PM
They should designate it as I-69E.

never!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 23, 2016, 01:43:38 PM
What about I-24E?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 23, 2016, 01:44:22 PM
What about I-24E?

it can be any number you want, minus the letter suffix
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2016, 06:29:10 PM
Actually, I think Interstate 124 wouldn't be a bad number for the first 34 miles of the Pennyrile Parkway. Maybe the remainder of the Western Kentucky Parkway could be an x-69 three-digit Interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: alecscradle on August 23, 2016, 09:24:36 PM
Is Pennyrile up to Interstate Standards down there? Because unless it is, I doubt that there's any chance of them upgrading it just to put a Spur on there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 23, 2016, 10:15:22 PM
I believe that most of the Pennyrile is up to interstate standards with the exception of exit 12, on the north side of Hopkinsville, where a toll booth used to be.  The extension from exit 7 to I-24 was definitely made with the up to date standards.

Heck, if Kentucky were north Carolina, who knows how many interstates would be within the state lines of KY!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on August 24, 2016, 11:43:00 PM
If they are going to designate the southern half of the Pennyrile as an interstate, I would prefer it takes on a 2-di, that can be multiplexed with both 24 and 69 between Evansville and Nashville, such as I-61. Giving it a 3-di would create 3 separate interstates linking the two cities, which was served for many years with US 41.

In addition, it could plant the seeds to gradually upgrade 41 in Indiana to the new route, eventually reaching Chicago. That sure would help alleviate the congestion along I-65 as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 07, 2016, 08:38:00 AM
On a Facebook post that I unfortunately cannot provide a link to :-( the Parkway was numbered Interstate 269, as it connects two Interstates.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on November 16, 2016, 01:29:07 PM
This article (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/33715164/states-select-i-69-bridge-design-team) reports that INDOT and KYTC have selected Parson Transportation Group for the preliminary design and to conduct the environmental review of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, a contract with that team is hoped to be finalized by the end of the year, and that the enveironmental review could take three years:

Quote
The Indiana Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet have chosen California-based Parson Transportation Group Inc. to lead the preliminary design and environmental review for the proposed I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project. Both departments hope to have an advance contract signed by the end of the year.
INDOT says the Parsons will conduct the review by collecting public input and studying potential routes for the interstate extension, as well as funding sources for the project. Both departments will meet with Parsons this week to begin contract negotiations. Parsons was selected from a number of firms who submitted proposals for the project.
Announced in June, Indiana Governor Mike Pence and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin announced both states would split the costs and oversight of the preliminary design and environmental testing work. Pence called the bridge an "artery of growth" that will help bring more prosperity to both states.
The extension will connect Evansville with Henderson, Kentucky.
Pence and Bevin said they had set aside $17 million for development costs. At the time of the original announcement, officials estimated the review and federal approval processes could take about three years to complete.

There is also this TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/i-69-bridge-partner-announced-today-negotiations-already-underway) about the selection of Parson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ukfan758 on December 06, 2016, 02:03:43 PM
This article (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/33715164/states-select-i-69-bridge-design-team) reports that INDOT and KYTC have selected Parson Transportation Group for the preliminary design and to conduct the environmental review of the I-69 Ohio River bridge, a contract with that team is hoped to be finalized by the end of the year, and that the enveironmental review could take three years:

Quote
The Indiana Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet have chosen California-based Parson Transportation Group Inc. to lead the preliminary design and environmental review for the proposed I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project. Both departments hope to have an advance contract signed by the end of the year.
INDOT says the Parsons will conduct the review by collecting public input and studying potential routes for the interstate extension, as well as funding sources for the project. Both departments will meet with Parsons this week to begin contract negotiations. Parsons was selected from a number of firms who submitted proposals for the project.
Announced in June, Indiana Governor Mike Pence and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin announced both states would split the costs and oversight of the preliminary design and environmental testing work. Pence called the bridge an "artery of growth" that will help bring more prosperity to both states.
The extension will connect Evansville with Henderson, Kentucky.
Pence and Bevin said they had set aside $17 million for development costs. At the time of the original announcement, officials estimated the review and federal approval processes could take about three years to complete.

There is also this TV video (http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/i-69-bridge-partner-announced-today-negotiations-already-underway) about the selection of Parson.

What exactly is done in a study to make it take 3 years?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
They have to go over every single blade of grass to make sure there isn't a single animal, plant, wetland, waterway, piece of land that could theoretically be used for farming, parkland, scenic view, historic building, archaeological resource, or a number of other things that could potentially be negatively affected by the project.  If even one thing is missed, it means a massive lawsuit would likely be filed against the state by an environmental group.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 06, 2016, 02:21:38 PM
They have to go over every single blade of grass to make sure there isn't a single animal, plant, wetland, waterway, piece of land that could theoretically be used for farming, parkland, scenic view, historic building, archaeological resource, or a number of other things that could potentially be negatively affected by the project.  If even one thing is missed, it means a massive lawsuit would likely be filed against the state by an environmental group.

those are so annoying to complete
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on December 06, 2016, 02:45:48 PM
They have to go over every single blade of grass to make sure there isn't a single animal, plant, wetland, waterway, piece of land that could theoretically be used for farming, parkland, scenic view, historic building, archaeological resource, or a number of other things that could potentially be negatively affected by the project.  If even one thing is missed, it means a massive lawsuit would likely be filed against the state by an environmental group.

those are so annoying to complete

LOL, we all know CARR will probably sue out of spite at this point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 06:36:11 PM
Only three years?!

There is a road up near my family's cabin in the Cascade Mountains that had a half-mile section washed out in a 2006 flood. The county plans to rebuild the road uphill, but the environmental impact statement and all that crap has taken over ten years to do, and construction on this road won't start until 2018, and the road won't be completed until 2020! That's fourteen years without a paved road to our cabin. We currently have to to drive on a gravel road to our cabin, which takes 45 minutes longer.

Moral of the story: I HATE environmental impact statements!! There should be a law that states that they can't spend more than three years on them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 06, 2016, 09:10:02 PM
Only three years?!

There is a road up near my family's cabin in the Cascade Mountains that had a half-mile section washed out in a 2006 flood. The county plans to rebuild the road uphill, but the environmental impact statement and all that crap has taken over ten years to do, and construction on this road won't start until 2018, and the road won't be completed until 2020! That's fourteen years without a paved road to our cabin. We currently have to to drive on a gravel road to our cabin, which takes 45 minutes longer.

Moral of the story: I HATE environmental impact statements!! There should be a law that states that they can't spend more than three years on them.

amen brother, i have to fill them out a lot at work, most of what they make you do is a waste of time.  I'm for keeping a good environment, but some of the things you need to do for permits is simply silly.  i don't want to get to political about it, but i HATE these things too!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2017, 01:27:45 PM
This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/01/09/legislators-report-historical-first-week-session-kyndle-breakfast/96345894/) reports that Indiana has been assigned the lead for the approaches to the bridge, and that the process should take about eighteen months:

Quote
One for the history books is how several local Kentucky officials described the first week of the new legislative session in which several bills were  fast-tracked to the governor's desk, including legislation involving abortion, right to work and the establishment a new U of L board of trustees.
State Sen. Dorsey Ridley, a Democrat who has been named as the Minority Caucus Chair; Republican Rep. Suzanne Miles; and newly elected Rep. Robby Mills, also a Republican, spoke during a legislative preview breakfast Monday morning sponsored by Kyndle at the Big Rivers Training Facility at Third and Main streets ...
During a question and answer period,City Commissioner Patti Bugg asked about the state of the I-69 bridge project.
"The leadership on the bridge approaches has been given to the Indiana Department of Transportation," Mills said. "So there is a lot of work to preparing routes, studying routes, preparing ... we were told that is an 18 month process."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on January 26, 2017, 10:13:18 PM
This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/01/26/engineer--69-route-henderson-should-announced-2019/97085938/) quotes an engineer as saying that a route around Henderson should be selected in 2019 and, if all goes smoothly, the I-69 Bridge should open in 2027:

Quote
While there is still no route decided for I-69 through Henderson, an answer should be coming in late 2019.
Kevin McClearn, the western Kentucky regional manager for American Engineers, Inc., spoke at the Henderson Rotary Club on Thursday about his thoughts on I-69 and what Henderson might see in the future.
Previously an engineer for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, McClearn offered his professional opinion on the project, but stressed that he wasn't officially representing the project.
While Parsons Transportation Group is the lead consultant on the I-69 Ohio River crossing project, Stantec, the same company working on the design for a new Spottsville Bridge, will also consult on the process, along with American Engineers, Inc., and 16 other consultants ....
In 2019, consultants plan to receive a record of decision, which includes environmental studies and other information, from the federal government. From there, an exact I-69 route through Henderson and/or Henderson County will be selected and funding will be decided upon.
"No one can predict where the route is going to go," said McClearn. "We all have our guesses. I'm not able to tell you what their favorite (route) is because there is no favorite. Everything will be considered. Once a route is chosen, hopefully it'll be a defendable alignment." ....
Different routes on the table include paths parallel and just to the east of the twin bridges or that follow along the existing U.S. 41 corridor. Another possible route would cross the Ohio River much further east, traveling between the communities of Graham and Zion before then connecting with the current Pennyrile Parkway/I-69 path. And yet another path further to the east would span the Ohio and then turn southwest after crossing U.S. 60 before merging with the current U.S. 41 just north of Kentucky 351.
With the question of the specific route for I-69 comes several other issues.
McClearn said one important question to ask is will the twin bridges remain or be demolished? After all, maintaining the structures comes at a high price. To maintain the bridges, KYTC may fix sections, paint, control vegetation and clean. And, according to McClearn, it takes approximately $25 million to paint both of the U.S. 41 bridges.
If a new bridge is built, officials may also consider keeping just one of the twin bridges ....
When asked what year he would guess the I-69 Ohio River crossing project would be complete, McClearn anticipated the project would not be complete until the year 2027, and that's if the project encounters no serious setbacks.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 27, 2017, 09:58:16 AM
wow 10 yrs
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on January 27, 2017, 05:00:04 PM
"The Methusela Memorial Bridge..."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2017, 05:24:12 PM
2027? We'll be old and grey by then!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on January 29, 2017, 03:41:20 AM
2027? We'll be old and grey by then!

I'm already old, and what little hair is left has been gray a long time! X-(  But seriously, given the fact that we're dealing with two jurisdictions with two individual ways of financing this project, and the fact that even raising 20% of the total cost of bridging not only a navigable river but the adjacent floodplains on either side is, in these times of fiscal uncertainty, a daunting task -- a 10-year timeframe doesn't seem all that discouraging or even unusual. 

As the projected I-69 crossing will likely be tolled, "halving" the present twin-span US 41 bridges would probably have the effect of discouraging large-scale shunpiking while maintaining an alternative which probably wouldn't be too onerous during off-peak hours.  Just eliminate the one that poses the greatest problems re maintenance and/or structural aging. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on March 14, 2017, 02:23:29 PM
2027? We'll be old and grey by then!

In this March 9 TV vdeo (http://www.14news.com/story/34713286/mayor-winnecke-says-i-69-completion-is-a-priority), Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke expresses hope that Vice-President (and former Indiana Governor) Pence could include the I-69 Ohio River bridge in the infrastructure package and maybe accelerate development of the project:

Quote
The Mayor says one of the biggest priorities this year is the completion of I-69, not only to the north but also the new Ohio River Bridge between Evansville and Henderson.
It's something Indiana, Kentucky, and the federal government must figure out how to pay for.
Right now, officials are conducting an environmental impact study first.
"We hope that as the EIS gets completed in the next year and a half to two years and as we have in-depth discussions about potential funding sources that the Vice President will remember this as he and the President work together on the proposed infrastructure package," said Mayor Winnecke. "We'll certainly use all our connections that we have."
The exact location of the I-69 bridge between Evansville and Henderson has not yet been determined.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 16, 2017, 08:59:38 PM
I have never been delayed ever either Southbound or Northbound on the current bridge configuration.  Are the current bridges safe?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 16, 2017, 10:57:49 PM
I have never been delayed ever either Southbound or Northbound on the current bridge configuration.  Are the current bridges safe?

You must not be traveling them at the right time. I need to put you in touch with the people who deal with the delays here on a frequent basis. Most anytime there's even the slightest incident on one of the bridges, or even minor routine maintenance, traffic stacks up.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 17, 2017, 01:42:56 AM
I have never been delayed ever either Southbound or Northbound on the current bridge configuration.  Are the current bridges safe?

You must not be traveling them at the right time. I need to put you in touch with the people who deal with the delays here on a frequent basis. Most anytime there's even the slightest incident on one of the bridges, or even minor routine maintenance, traffic stacks up.

I am one of those people hb. Evansville-Henderson is the largest metropolitan area on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing. Try working on one side, and having children at school or daycare on the other side, and there is a backup. Backups are regular and too frequent.

This guy has some strange obsession with leaving US 41 as is, so the Henderson 41 North McDonalds isn't affected any.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 05:23:50 PM
best case scenario is brand new 69 crossing and 2 brand new 41 crossings (twin bridges for 41).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on March 17, 2017, 06:30:20 PM
best case scenario is brand new 69 crossing and 2 brand new 41 crossings (twin bridges for 41).

That's unlikely, at least in the near term.  Having enough trouble getting the financial wherewithal to build the 69 bridge; any revamping or replacement of the 41 bridges will probably have to wait until well after the new 69 crossing is somewhat amortized -- or at least not fresh in the memory of those with the purse strings. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2017, 08:32:50 PM
best case scenario is brand new 69 crossing and 2 brand new 41 crossings (twin bridges for 41).

That's unlikely, at least in the near term.  Having enough trouble getting the financial wherewithal to build the 69 bridge; any revamping or replacement of the 41 bridges will probably have to wait until well after the new 69 crossing is somewhat amortized -- or at least not fresh in the memory of those with the purse strings.

The older bridge is about 80 years old. The other bridge was built in the 1960s. Both had substantial work about eight or nine years ago and are in good shape structurally. Most likely option is when the I-69 bridge is built and it becomes impractical to continue to maintain the southbound span, it is closed and two-way traffic is maintained on the northbound span, since the new I-69 bridge will likely take traffic off of US 41.

Also remember that while the I-69 will be a joint venture between Kentucky and Indiana, the US 41 crossing is entirely in Kentucky and is 100 percent the Bluegrass State's financial responsibility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 08:35:11 PM
Is it likely that 69 will be towed?
(Bridge only)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on March 17, 2017, 09:17:38 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2017, 11:03:24 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 11:04:55 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Haha never underestimate people's cheapness
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on March 17, 2017, 11:08:38 PM
Actually you save $4 in tolls. And IMO it would be worth it in both cases (Louisville and Evansville).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 17, 2017, 11:09:27 PM
Toll em both
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 18, 2017, 02:11:09 PM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Haha never underestimate people's cheapness

To each their own, but to me, my time and peace of mind are worth something. It's certainly not worth it to me to get off the interstate and have to deal with stop-and-go traffic and traffic lights to cross the US 31 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on March 25, 2017, 11:13:04 AM
I would say that unless the bridge gets some type of priority funding it is very likely to be tolled.
If that's the case I'd say 41 won't lose much traffic

It will if they do something to discourage through traffic -- more traffic lights, lowered weight limit on the bridge, a truck ban, etc.

It boggles my mind that people would rather go out of the way and venture into the burning pit of hell that is downtown Louisville traffic to save $2 in tolls. If you lose 15 minutes by using US 41 instead of I-69, that's not worth $2.
Haha never underestimate people's cheapness

To each their own, but to me, my time and peace of mind are worth something. It's certainly not worth it to me to get off the interstate and have to deal with stop-and-go traffic and traffic lights to cross the US 31 bridge.

To be fair, the Henderson strip along 41, with a little lighter traffic due to a new 69 bridge, isn't as drastic as entering "the burning pit of hell" of downtown Louisville.

On a side note, discovered a new unfortunate twist with the new Louisville bridge. There is no way to pay tolling until you receive a bill from the fine River Link folks. Received my $4 bill about a week ago, which is all fine and dandy..however, yesterday I received a notice from Enterprise, that they were charging me an additional $10 for processing the toll notice since I happened to be in a rental car that day.

Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

In short, a back and forth across in a rental car will cost you $14. I might dive into the "burning pit of hell" for $14.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 25, 2017, 03:20:14 PM
Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

I don't live anywhere near a toll facility. Closest ones to me are the new Louisville bridges (which I rarely cross) and the West Virginia Turnpike (which I don't use all that often). Regardless, I still have an E-ZPass (issued by the WV Turnpike) and transferring it to a rental is fairly easy. All i would have to do, once I acquired the rental, would be to log onto their website and enter the license plate number. Then when I turned the rental in, go back and remove that plate number from my list of vehicles.

As for mounting, you can get suction cup mounts that stick to the windshield that eliminate the need for the little Velcro strips.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: PurdueBill on March 26, 2017, 01:30:16 PM
Car rental companies have quite the scam going with the extra charges for tolls.

Two years ago Avis billed me for a toll on E-470 that I didn't incur; I had the parking receipt to show that their car was parked at 3am when the toll was supposedly incurred.  They took it off when I protested. 

Last year I needed to rent one-way from EWR airport to 30th Street station in Philadelphia when my flight to PHL went bust; I had brought my E-ZPass with me and went online to enter the rental car's plate number but the Mass E-ZPass web site said "that plate is connected to another account" already despite the E-ZPass being a NY MTA one, possibly from a pay-by-plate ding sometime on the Tobin bridge or something, or maybe the agencies talk to each other.  I still tried using my E-ZPass in the rental on the NJ Turnpike and the Burlington-Bristol Bridge and it worked, without National Car Rental dinging me (thank goodness or else I was going to raise a stink).

If the I-69 bridge is tolled, they really should leave a toll-free crossing for locals and for those of us unfortunate enough to hit the area in a rental.  I've been in EVV with a rental vehicle and I sure wouldn't take a $14 hit for one round-trip across the river--that is a total scam beyond any actual cost to the rental company; it's a pure money grab.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 26, 2017, 02:31:23 PM
Everything's a money grab. Witness a landline phone company charging a $99 connection fee for a house that's already wired, when all they have to do is flip a switch somewhere.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: PurdueBill on March 26, 2017, 09:57:14 PM
Everything's a money grab. Witness a landline phone company charging a $99 connection fee for a house that's already wired, when all they have to do is flip a switch somewhere.

And a monopoly that is allowed to do it.  The car rental people seem to be a cartel who all agree to soak the customers because no one will not grab an exorbitant charge for the toll "service".  Very frustrating.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 27, 2017, 08:42:01 AM
Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

I don't live anywhere near a toll facility. Closest ones to me are the new Louisville bridges (which I rarely cross) and the West Virginia Turnpike (which I don't use all that often). Regardless, I still have an E-ZPass (issued by the WV Turnpike) and transferring it to a rental is fairly easy. All i would have to do, once I acquired the rental, would be to log onto their website and enter the license plate number. Then when I turned the rental in, go back and remove that plate number from my list of vehicles.

As for mounting, you can get suction cup mounts that stick to the windshield that eliminate the need for the little Velcro strips.

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on March 27, 2017, 08:54:06 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 27, 2017, 08:55:11 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on March 27, 2017, 08:56:59 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.

ha.  The Cubs logo threw me off.

Longtime Cubs fan in the SW suburbs here.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 27, 2017, 09:04:52 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.

ha.  The Cubs logo threw me off.

Longtime Cubs fan in the SW suburbs here.
Actually that's the reason I visit Chicago so much :D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 27, 2017, 11:09:06 AM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2017, 11:32:39 AM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm

Which page?  There are like 291 unsortable pages in the spreadsheet! :-o
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 27, 2017, 11:34:30 AM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm

Which page?  There are like 291 unsortable pages in the spreadsheet! :-o

ctrl+f and type in the county, use vanderburgh. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2017, 12:32:57 PM
INDOT released their stip report, and 69 ohio river bridge is on it, well the new roadway approach it appears. http://www.in.gov/indot/3132.htm

Which page?  There are like 291 unsortable pages in the spreadsheet! :-o

ctrl+f and type in the county, use vanderburgh.

I knew there had to be a secret, I did not think you went through every page.

(I don't use PDFs that often where I would need to search them.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 27, 2017, 12:43:23 PM
It's not very easy to search honestly. But about the list, I skimmed Marion and Vanderburgh and not a whole lot of big stuff. Just maintenance really.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on March 28, 2017, 09:31:26 AM

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

I think you can get them from any Jewel Osco store or the Illinois tollway office, off of I-88

Actually I don't live in Illinois. I just got the IPass because I visit Chicago often.

ha.  The Cubs logo threw me off.

Longtime Cubs fan in the SW suburbs here.
Actually that's the reason I visit Chicago so much :D
Welcome to the club! I may live in Seattle now, but I'm still a Cubs fan through and through :)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on March 28, 2017, 01:13:38 PM
It's not very easy to search honestly. But about the list, I skimmed Marion and Vanderburgh and not a whole lot of big stuff. Just maintenance really.

There is a line for "PR-69" (which is how INDOT refers to unbuilt sections of I-69) for the Ohio River Bridge approaches, but it appears the STIP entry is for engineering and design, not for construction. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 29, 2017, 08:44:53 PM
Getting a prepay pass living in Evansville doesn't seem all that practical, and I am not sure how you could transfer that to a rental anyway.

I don't live anywhere near a toll facility. Closest ones to me are the new Louisville bridges (which I rarely cross) and the West Virginia Turnpike (which I don't use all that often). Regardless, I still have an E-ZPass (issued by the WV Turnpike) and transferring it to a rental is fairly easy. All i would have to do, once I acquired the rental, would be to log onto their website and enter the license plate number. Then when I turned the rental in, go back and remove that plate number from my list of vehicles.

As for mounting, you can get suction cup mounts that stick to the windshield that eliminate the need for the little Velcro strips.

I have an IPass and that's what I do with mine when I get a rental car. By the way, where does one get these suction cup mounts? From Amazon/EBay/etc.,?

Got mine off eBay.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 29, 2017, 09:39:14 PM
It's not very easy to search honestly. But about the list, I skimmed Marion and Vanderburgh and not a whole lot of big stuff. Just maintenance really.

There is a line for "PR-69" (which is how INDOT refers to unbuilt sections of I-69) for the Ohio River Bridge approaches, but it appears the STIP entry is for engineering and design, not for construction.

sounds like they're calling it "paper relocate 69"
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on March 29, 2017, 10:02:14 PM
More likely Poo Remnant.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on March 30, 2017, 12:55:59 AM
Educated guess: "PR-69" indicates PReliminary I-69 activities (determining exact alignment, searching property titles for land to be acquired, whittling down cost estimates, jurisdictional coordination etc.).  S.O.P.; nothing unexpected to be seen here!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 30, 2017, 07:40:03 AM
I'm thinking Pre-Road...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 04, 2017, 02:42:48 PM
wow 10 yrs

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/04/03/local-legislators-discuss-busy-session/99748162/) reports that groundbreaking could take place for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in as soon as three years:

Quote
During the question and answer portion of the breakfast, Caleb May, director of the Henderson County Public Library district, asked about the timeline for the I-69 bridge project.
"Groundbreaking for the project is three to five years," said Judge-executive Brad Schneider, who is also a member of BridgeLink. "Don't let the talk of different routes distract you. By the end of this calendar year, you're going to see tremendous progress toward the environmental impact study and you'll hear about public hearings."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on April 04, 2017, 04:32:15 PM
wow 10 yrs

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/04/03/local-legislators-discuss-busy-session/99748162/) reports that groundbreaking could take place for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge in as soon as three years:

Quote
During the question and answer portion of the breakfast, Caleb May, director of the Henderson County Public Library district, asked about the timeline for the I-69 bridge project.
"Groundbreaking for the project is three to five years," said Judge-executive Brad Schneider, who is also a member of BridgeLink. "Don't let the talk of different routes distract you. By the end of this calendar year, you're going to see tremendous progress toward the environmental impact study and you'll hear about public hearings."

Now that I-69 signage is posted along both facilities north and south of the proposed bridge site, it's likely that pressure to advance the crossing will come from not only the local region but from the trucking sector as well; Indianapolis-Memphis via I-69 (and, for the time being, US 51 south of Dyersburg, TN) only requires two POE stops (KY, TN) rather than 4 (IL, MO, AR, TN) via I-70/57/55 (not counting any pre-clearance arrangements).  That portion of the I-69 compendium actually makes sense as a largely direct route that avoids major (sorry, Evansville!) metro congestion points. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on April 13, 2017, 11:00:16 AM
This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/04/03/local-legislators-discuss-busy-session/99748162/)
Quote
"Groundbreaking for the project is three to five years," said Judge-executive Brad Schneider, who is also a member of BridgeLink. "Don't let the talk of different routes distract you. By the end of this calendar year, you're going to see tremendous progress toward the environmental impact study and you'll hear about public hearings."

INDOT and KYTC have taken the first step toward engaging the public by setting up a website,
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/
through which one can sign up for information newsletters, etc. It also has information about upcoming public information hearings in Henderson and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on April 14, 2017, 09:41:05 AM
About time!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 19, 2017, 12:04:06 AM
I was browsing the project website today and saw that they had an open house today about the upcoming environmental process. Here are the links to the presentation (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/201704-PSTN-Open-House-Presentation-FINAL.pdf) and meeting handout (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20170418-I-69-ORX-Open-House-Handout.pdf). Page 2 of the handout contains the range of alternatives under study for the bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 07:49:34 AM
i didn't realize the west corridor was being considered.  I like the east corridor, but i doubt this will be picked, it will require another bridge over the green river, plus henderson would likely get pissed. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on April 19, 2017, 08:08:58 AM
i didn't realize the west corridor was being considered.  I like the east corridor, but i doubt this will be picked, it will require another bridge over the green river, plus henderson would likely get pissed. 

If the West Corridor is considered, then that means that in the end there would (more than likely) still be only one Ohio River crossing. I hope that it doesn't get selected.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 08:12:01 AM
best case scenario is they have 2 crossings, and all 4 bridges (assuming 69 will be twin bridges) would be brand new. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 19, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
In reviewing the proposals, it appeared that all of the options included building a new bridge across the Ohio River.  The two west options would apparently bulldoze over quite a lot of residential area just west of the current Highway 41 strip in Henderson.  I'm not sure what the plan for the existing bridges are with those proposals.  I just can't see any way that they leave a 75 and 50 year old bridge running a new interstate, plus you have access to Ellis Park that would need to be addressed for some.

The far eastern proposal gets everything out of the way of Henderson, but uses a lot of new territory in Kentucky.  It would also require Indiana to renumber I-69's exits.  For instance, Lloyd Expressway is currently Exit 7; it would have to change to Exit 3 or Exit 4.  (That's not a big, big deal, but would require repositioning about 2000 mileage posts (10 per mile each way).  It also would require bulldozing through a couple of subdivisions south of the current interstate and adjacent to Angel Mounds, which the interstate would have to avoid.

I think the center option is the best in which the road goes around the Audubon Park, east and south east of US 60 and then connects in with US 41 north of the Zion Road exit.  I would also pay a few extra bucks to give the road the width to have 3 lanes in both directions.  I could see a need for that in the future, and it would cost much less to do it now than in the future, but of course, this is Indiana, and they don't look ahead.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Georgia on April 19, 2017, 08:23:55 PM
best case scenario is they have 2 crossings, and all 4 bridges (assuming 69 will be twin bridges) would be brand new.

you think they would honestly spend the money on 4 new bridges in the current climate?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 08:56:23 PM
best case scenario is they have 2 crossings, and all 4 bridges (assuming 69 will be twin bridges) would be brand new.

you think they would honestly spend the money on 4 new bridges in the current climate?

no that's why i said best case scenario, what will happen is just one bridge for 69, and 41 will fall apart.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on April 19, 2017, 11:47:59 PM
It's pretty explicitly stated in the study document that the plan is to remove the US 41 bridges when the new span is completed, given the effort to ensure there's a connection to US 41 near the river.

Presumably that also gives them the option of delaying the freeway connection from the new bridge to the Pennyrile if necessary for funding reasons, while allowing the existing bridges to be retired, saving on future maintenance.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on April 20, 2017, 12:47:52 AM
i didn't realize the west corridor was being considered.  I like the east corridor, but i doubt this will be picked, it will require another bridge over the green river, plus henderson would likely get pissed.

As I recall, most of the Henderson interests wanted the east corridor because it took through traffic off the strip and gave them a new "front door" using KY 351/Zion Rd/2nd St.  But from what I see, there's no proposed interchange at 351 with either the Central 2 or East corridors.

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/03/31/business-booming-along-41-strip/96129876/) seems to indicate that the less foot-dragging that goes on, the better ... Henderson's growth isn't going to wait.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on April 20, 2017, 07:31:28 AM
It's pretty explicitly stated in the study document that the plan is to remove the US 41 bridges when the new span is completed, given the effort to ensure there's a connection to US 41 near the river.

Presumably that also gives them the option of delaying the freeway connection from the new bridge to the Pennyrile if necessary for funding reasons, while allowing the existing bridges to be retired, saving on future maintenance.

they're not going to remove both bridges
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 20, 2017, 08:22:33 AM
They are currently in the process of redecking the bridges to increase their lifespan by 25 years.  I could see them perhaps going from twin bridges to focusing on one bridge (the newer one), since that is only 50 years old (compared to 75), and actually has a better approach on the Indiana side.  The older bridge has a somewhat sharp turn left going north as it is going around Ellis Park.  There really needs to be a second crossing over the Ohio in the Evansville/Henderson metro in case of a bad accident.  There are two near Owensboro with much less traffic through that area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on April 20, 2017, 10:28:03 PM
They are currently in the process of redecking the bridges to increase their lifespan by 25 years.  I could see them perhaps going from twin bridges to focusing on one bridge (the newer one), since that is only 50 years old (compared to 75), and actually has a better approach on the Indiana side.  The older bridge has a somewhat sharp turn left going north as it is going around Ellis Park.  There really needs to be a second crossing over the Ohio in the Evansville/Henderson metro in case of a bad accident.  There are two near Owensboro with much less traffic through that area.

Actually, the northbound span is 85 years old. I agree on the second crossing, I am pretty sure this is the largest MSA on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 01, 2017, 09:44:09 PM
700 WLW in Cincinnati was reporting today that field offices for the I-69 bridge have opened up this week in both Indiana and Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2017, 05:11:07 PM
700 WLW in Cincinnati was reporting today that field offices for the I-69 bridge have opened up this week in both Indiana and Kentucky.

I'm assuming that since an actual bridge alignment or the location of approach routes has yet to be finalized, these field offices are more for deployment of resources aimed at actually ensuring that progress continues toward the construction of the new bridge rather than anything to do with physical construction activity. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 02, 2017, 06:31:46 PM
The new offices are open in Evansville and Henderson, KY.  Apparently the same staff since they are open different days of the week; both offices are never open at the same time.  They are working on finalizing the route, which is not expected until sometime late in 2018.  Construction at the earliest to begin in 2020 (perhaps is wishful thinking).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 03, 2017, 12:47:36 AM
The new offices are open in Evansville and Henderson, KY.  Apparently the same staff since they are open different days of the week; both offices are never open at the same time.  They are working on finalizing the route, which is not expected until sometime late in 2018.  Construction at the earliest to begin in 2020 (perhaps is wishful thinking).

That sounds suspiciously like the real estate offices that were deployed in new housing tracts during the "bubble" of the early 2000's -- roving staff selling a batch here and a batch there before collecting their commissions and moving on.  Guess the concept works as well for selling a bridge project to those who can make it happen in both states involved.  However, in this case, let's hope they're successful in as short a timeframe as possible!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 04, 2017, 09:02:21 PM
They are working on finalizing the route, which is not expected until sometime late in 2018.  Construction at the earliest to begin in 2020 (perhaps is wishful thinking).

That is incredibly optimistic. I doubt that happens.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 05, 2017, 02:35:50 PM
2030 seems like a better estimate on when construction might start, in my opinion.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 05, 2017, 06:22:30 PM
they have to figure out the alignment, file some annoying permits, then design it, then build it.  that's a long ass time
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 05, 2017, 08:15:07 PM
they have to figure out the alignment, file some annoying permits, then design it, then build it.  that's a long ass time

This. I don't think they even have an alignment selected yet? And we all know how long environmental approvals take.........
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on July 06, 2017, 02:32:19 AM
Is there even a design for the I-69 bridge. It didn't even take this long for the US 231 Owensboro bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 08:08:21 AM
i doubt they can design it not knowing where it will be. the damn permits will take the most time. i HATE filing permits!  :banghead:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 06, 2017, 08:16:10 AM
There are five current alignments in the mix.  Two of them I didn't know about until a month ago have the bridge being built just to the WEST of the current US 41 bridge and the road tearing up a residential commercial area west of the current strip in Henderson to merge into the current US 41 at its interchange with US 60.  Two other options have the bridge just east of the current US 41 bridge (crossing near the mouth of the Green River into the Ohio) and going around Audubon Park to the old Pennyrile either just before the Zion Road exit or near the 425 exit.  The final alternative plows through residential neighborhoods in Western Warrick County east of the Angel Mounds State Monument and crosses the Ohio and goes far east in Henderson County, KY to hitch up with I-69 near the Highway 425 exit.  I really think the middle two options are the more likely.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 08:18:13 AM
There are five current alignments in the mix.  Two of them I didn't know about until a month ago have the bridge being built just to the WEST of the current US 41 bridge and the road tearing up a residential commercial area west of the current strip in Henderson to merge into the current US 41 at its interchange with US 60.  Two other options have the bridge just east of the current US 41 bridge (crossing near the mouth of the Green River into the Ohio) and going around Audubon Park to the old Pennyrile either just before the Zion Road exit or near the 425 exit.  The final alternative plows through residential neighborhoods in Western Warrick County east of the Angel Mounds State Monument and crosses the Ohio and goes far east in Henderson County, KY to hitch up with I-69 near the Highway 425 exit.  I really think the middle two options are the more likely.

have a link to a map of the proposed alignments?  i'm not sure why they even considered anything west of 41, that's a weird choice.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on July 06, 2017, 08:47:56 AM


have a link to a map of the proposed alignments?  i'm not sure why they even considered anything west of 41, that's a weird choice.

Here you go..

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20170418-I-69-ORX-Open-House-Handout.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on July 06, 2017, 08:59:12 AM


have a link to a map of the proposed alignments?  i'm not sure why they even considered anything west of 41, that's a weird choice.

Here you go..

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20170418-I-69-ORX-Open-House-Handout.pdf

Better yet...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/I-69-FEASIBILITY-STUDY.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 01:25:20 PM
i personally like the east crossing. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 05:12:26 PM
The east crossing does create the least amount of problems for Henderson itself; its overall cost is essentially on a parity with the other options.  However, it appears that all of the options save one of the east alternatives eliminate the present US 41 twin crossings and leave only the I-69 bridge, regardless of location, as the sole river crossing.  It appears that the calculus being employed here takes into account the ongoing maintenance costs of the existing bridges -- and is essentially attempting to utilize the future zeroing-out of that cost as one of the justifications for the new facility.  With that in mind, it's likely that even if the option eventually selected is the one that retains the US 41 crossing, one of the bridges -- ostensibly the oldest one -- will be dismantled, leaving a 2-lane "surface" facility to serve as the direct Henderson-Evansville connector, with the I-69 facility's utilization primarily dedicated to longer-distance traffic plus (via the US 60 interchange with the eastern option) access to the eastern parts of Evansville.  It's probably been calculated that with the through traffic removed from US 41, a single bridge will be adequate to address the mainly local usage.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 06, 2017, 05:37:34 PM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 06, 2017, 07:37:29 PM
i personally like the east crossing.

I personally do as well, and feel it would provide the most benefit to the area motorists, providing the growing Newburgh area with a crossing several miles east of the current one. Will create the most benefit to Henderson as well by opening up the far eastern edge of the city for easy accessibility.

With that said, it will be the most costly in terms of mileage, and would be the only route requiring a bridge over the Green River. My gut tells me we will get one of the Central Corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 07:40:27 PM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.

Not gonna happen!  Too much local support on both sides of the river for this project to be abandoned.  The die was cast with the completion of I-69 from both directions, leaving only the bridge to be deployed.  No jurisdiction, official, or project promoter wants Henderson to be another Breezewood -- and that includes Henderson itself!  At this point in time, it appears that for the most part those who would prefer to dance on the grave of a truncated I-69 have retrenched back to the occasional "piss & moan" session, with little if any lasting effect. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:38:45 PM
they should rebuild 41's bridges and build the east alternative for 69, and toll 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 06, 2017, 10:34:24 PM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.

What is your problem with building the new bridge? Do you like traffic bottlenecks?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 10:36:01 PM
evansville and henderson should have 2, 4 lane crossings. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 07, 2017, 11:38:10 AM
I would propose an alternate 8, leave in place.

What is your problem with building the new bridge? Do you like traffic bottlenecks?

He has some strange obsession about this bridge, even though he lives in Tennessee. He drove through here on a Sunday morning, didn't see a traffic issue, and is worried about the fast food joints that line the strip. He thinks Henderson's best option is to become a Breezewood on I-69....

Ignore the fact the Henderson Chamber is 110% on board with a new bridge and it is the focal project for both cities. I have reminded him several times that the Evansville-Henderson metro is the largest metro on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing. Now that there is new lane restrictions and construction, we will face again numerous lengthy delays going across. None of this matters to this clown..he keeps coming back with concern for the businesses on the strip. There is nothing on that strip except chain fast food joints and convenience stores that are found in every single city of the same size. They will continue to serve the local population just fine.

I love old highways. When time allows, I often take US 41 from Henderson to Hopkinsville, or other US Highways that parallel interstates...and you and many others can and will use US 41 across the Ohio to keep plenty of traffic on it, but the 400,000 residents and daily commuters of this metro deserve and need better access.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: US 41 on July 07, 2017, 08:25:55 PM
They're going to be doing major construction on the US 41 bridges for the next couple of years starting in the fall.

 http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/twin-bridges-us-41-set-for-major-construction/465222603

The bridges are supposed to last another 2 decades before they'll need more (major) work.

Quote
KYTC officials say the twin bridges are inspected biannually. The last inspection was in August 2014 and it received a “satisfactory”  rating.

Officials say the construction project aims to ensure the longevity of the bridge, not because it's unsafe.

Quote
More than two years of round-the-clock headaches for drivers, for work engineers say will last two decades.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 11, 2017, 11:49:55 AM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on July 11, 2017, 02:48:31 PM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

http://www.14news.com/category/325565/henderson-bridge-hd-skycam-sponsored-by-dempewolf-ford
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 11, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

http://www.14news.com/category/325565/henderson-bridge-hd-skycam-sponsored-by-dempewolf-ford

I tried to look online to see how wide each lane would be but I couldn't find anything or I may have overlooked something.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on July 11, 2017, 05:39:29 PM
The draft MOT plans are showing 10' outside lanes and 9'-8" for the center lane.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 11, 2017, 07:27:48 PM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

It's been done a few times in the past when they were working or painting it. If traffic stays slow, it isn't that bad, although the optics of oncoming traffic takes a little getting used to.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 12, 2017, 08:17:18 AM
The draft MOT plans are showing 10' outside lanes and 9'-8" for the center lane.

That isn't quite as tight as I thought it would be.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 12, 2017, 11:04:57 AM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

This was in effect a few years ago when I crossed the bridges. Two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other direction, while one lane remains on the other bridge.

http://millenniumhwy.net/videos/US_41_twin_bridges.mov

Really crappy video. Fast-forward to the 1:35 to go marker to see how the lane setup worked.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 12, 2017, 11:57:05 PM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

This was in effect a few years ago when I crossed the bridges. Two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other direction, while one lane remains on the other bridge.

http://millenniumhwy.net/videos/US_41_twin_bridges.mov

Really crappy video. Fast-forward to the 1:35 to go marker to see how the lane setup worked.

Enjoyed the music with the video. I  forgot how recent it was that they painted them. Man, they must of used some paint they got out of a reject bin, they look absolutely horrible now. Looks like they haven't been painted since they were built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 13, 2017, 11:02:37 AM
One of the projects will squeeze three lanes onto one of the bridges while work is done is on the other bridge. That seems like a stretch.

This was in effect a few years ago when I crossed the bridges. Two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other direction, while one lane remains on the other bridge.

http://millenniumhwy.net/videos/US_41_twin_bridges.mov

Really crappy video. Fast-forward to the 1:35 to go marker to see how the lane setup worked.

Enjoyed the music with the video. I  forgot how recent it was that they painted them. Man, they must of used some paint they got out of a reject bin, they look absolutely horrible now. Looks like they haven't been painted since they were built.

Yes, they had issues with the paint and the contractor on that project. I can't remember the specifics, however.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on July 14, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
If the traffic is anything like that today, I'd build the I-69 crossing a bit upstream and leave those two bridges right where they are, reconfiguring the south end of the 'Strip' to best serve local traffic.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 15, 2017, 02:43:06 AM
If the traffic is anything like that today, I'd build the I-69 crossing a bit upstream and leave those two bridges right where they are, reconfiguring the south end of the 'Strip' to best serve local traffic.

Mike

Even though there were rumors of cutting back to one US 41 bridge once the I-69 crossing was completed, with the work they're putting into both bridges it's hard to imagine that they won't remain side by side -- at least until the next time one (probably the older of the two) requires more extensive repair.  Also, it's likely that both cities on either side of the river -- plus their chambers of commerce -- plus the regional MPO -- wouldn't look too kindly on the arbitrary loss of one of the bridges if there was even a chance of retaining them both.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 15, 2017, 05:20:32 AM
Personally? If they decide to build the I-69 bridges alongside the US 41 bridge, then I'd keep the old US 41 bridges yet convert them for multiple use for bicycles and pedestrians and local access for both Henderson and Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on July 15, 2017, 09:53:27 AM
Personally? If they decide to build the I-69 bridges alongside the US 41 bridge, then I'd keep the old US 41 bridges yet convert them for multiple use for bicycles and pedestrians and local access for both Henderson and Evansville.

Remove one though. The "new" access would likely only need to be two lanes, since the through traffic would be re-routed to the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 16, 2017, 01:48:51 PM
Personally? If they decide to build the I-69 bridges alongside the US 41 bridge, then I'd keep the old US 41 bridges yet convert them for multiple use for bicycles and pedestrians and local access for both Henderson and Evansville.

Remove one though. The "new" access would likely only need to be two lanes, since the through traffic would be re-routed to the I-69 bridge.

Through traffic with the exception of toll jumpers and that poster from Tennessee.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ukfan758 on July 17, 2017, 05:36:36 PM
Personally? If they decide to build the I-69 bridges alongside the US 41 bridge, then I'd keep the old US 41 bridges yet convert them for multiple use for bicycles and pedestrians and local access for both Henderson and Evansville.

Remove one though. The "new" access would likely only need to be two lanes, since the through traffic would be re-routed to the I-69 bridge.
Or keep both, one for the 2-lane road and the other bridge as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge. The lanes and bridge for 41N could be the two lane highway and the lanes and bridge for 41S could be pedestrian/bike bridge and a wide bike path that extends out to Evansville and Henderson. Parks could be added to each side and some businesses might set up shop along the path (similar to what's happened to the pedestrian bridge in Lousiville).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 18, 2017, 12:27:18 PM
I would probably flip the bridges on your proposal, since I believe that the northbound bridge is the oldest and the traffic would be better suited on the 1960s bridge rather than the 1930s bridge.  The only difficulty is that you would have to have pedestrians/bikes cross traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 18, 2017, 12:42:31 PM
Open Houses coming at the end of the month
https://surfky.com/index.php/henderson/news-henderson/121372-public-input-sought-on-i-69-ohio-river-crossing
Quote
Two open houses are scheduled later this month and early next month to discuss the short list of alternatives for a new I-69 Ohio River Crossing connecting Evansville, Indiana and Henderson.

A list of five broad corridors was presented in April. An extensive screening process has followed. The short list of alternatives is expected later this month, and will be discussed further at the open houses, I-69 Ohio River Crossing Spokeswoman Mindy Peterson announced.

Evansville Open House/Henderson Open House
Monday, July 31, 5-7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 1, 5-7 p.m.
Crescent Room at Milestones Henderson Community College
621 S. Cullen Ave. Preston Fine Arts Center
2660 S. Green St.

Each open house will include a presentation at 6:00 p.m. The rest of the event is an open house format, with several information stations.

Attendees will have a chance to talk one-on-one with leaders of the I-69 ORX team, hear more about the project and ask questions. Comment cards will be provided.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
If the East alternative is used then Henderson will lose business.  If the West alternative is used then several folks will be rooted from their homes and businesses.  Henderson has a major decision to make here and one alternative was not even posed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 18, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
If the East alternative is used then Henderson will lose business.  If the West alternative is used then several folks will be rooted from their homes and businesses.  Henderson has a major decision to make here and one alternative was not even posed.

Henderson's not going to lose business. People who need gas are still going to get gas, people who need to eat will still eat, and people who need to spend the night will still spend the night. The last two times I have been through that area, I have stopped at the Thornton's just to use the restroom. Left without spending a dime.

People made the same arguments when the Mountain Parkway widening project was being discussed. Salyersville was successful in getting a bypass of the commercial strip at the end of the Mountain Parkway along US 460 eliminated. Now they're four-laning the existing road, putting in a system of frontage and backage lights, and replacing one traffic light with five or six traffic lights. The fear was that if a four-lane bypass was built just to the south of that strip, those businesses (those that weren't damaged by the 2012 tornado) would dry up.

Meanwhile, 15 miles away, four-lane US 23 bypassed the old route at Paintsville, where all the restaurants and stores are, and it's thriving. Well, if you discount Kmart closing, but that's happening everywhere and Ollie's is coming to Paintsville; I'm guessing in the old Kmart location. You have to exit the four-lane and drive a couple of miles to eat or get gas, but it didn't kill the town.

If the need arises, highway services will relocate out to the new path of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2017, 08:49:27 PM
I am familiar with Paintsville.  If I wasn't on a road trip to see things I would have missed it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 19, 2017, 01:45:35 AM
Do you not understand that the Henderson Chamber of Commerce...you know, the folks in Henderson who actually understand and serve the businesses of Henderson is 110% in favor of this, and is pushing this as hard as they possibly can.

For the last time....Henderson will be fine..in fact, they will be better than fine. If the eastern route (my personal favorite) is chosen, that will open the eastern edges of Henderson for new growth. It will open the eastern sections of Evansville and adjacent Warrick County(the area of growth on the Indiana side) to the eastern sections of Henderson. With better access back and forth, lower property taxes, and considerably lower utilities, Henderson IMO will see an era of unprecedented growth as for the first time, people relocating to the Evansville area will take Henderson into consideration.  As a resident on the Indiana side, I can tell you I will look at relocating over the river once we have adequate crossings in place.

Did Gallatin Pike in Nashville dry up when I-65 was completed? Of course not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 19, 2017, 07:41:43 AM
there's enough people in henderson to support those businesses, they'll be fine.  this is just a bullshit argument to stop progress, it happens all the time.  If your business is worth going to, you will be fine.  They tried to stop the 37 project in fishers and noblesville over this stupid reasoning, and it failed. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 19, 2017, 10:15:43 AM
I haven't been through Henderson other than the US 41 strip for many years. Where is the major commercial development in town? What's along the strip is mainly highway businesses (gas stations, motels, restaurants). Or is there not really a commercial area and do most residents cross the river to shop and eat at those facilities on the east side of Evansville near what once was I-164?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 19, 2017, 11:21:36 AM
There is a Cracker Barrel, Sonic, Walmart, and Lowe's along US 60 east of US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: qguy on July 19, 2017, 11:40:38 PM
Often with a high-congestion, mixed local- and through-traffic situation, when the local traffic and through traffic is separated, an increase in local business patronage occurs, not a decrease as is feared.

The congestion causes so long a travel time that through drivers are less likely to stop in order to avoid making a long throughput even longer. (Stop? Are you kidding? I just want to get through!) And local drivers are more likely to avoid the area because of the hassle caused by the congestion. (Drive into town? Are you kidding? It's too blasted hard to get in and out!) When the local and through traffic is separated and local congestion is eased, though drivers are less likely to mind stopping because they can get in and out rather quickly and local drivers are more likely to drive in to local businesses because it's easier to do than before.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: compdude787 on July 20, 2017, 12:30:58 AM
Often with a high-congestion, mixed local- and through-traffic situation, when the local traffic and through traffic is separated, an increase in local business patronage occurs, not a decrease as is feared.

The congestion causes so long a travel time that through drivers are less likely to stop in order to avoid making a long throughput even longer. (Stop? Are you kidding? I just want to get through!) And local drivers are more likely to avoid the area because of the hassle caused by the congestion. (Drive into town? Are you kidding? It's too blasted hard to get in and out!) When the local and through traffic is separated and local congestion is eased, though drivers are less likely to mind stopping because they can get in and out rather quickly and local drivers are more likely to drive in to local businesses because it's easier to do than before.

Yes! This is exactly why bypasses are a good idea for businesses.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on July 20, 2017, 06:15:12 PM
I got an email alert about this, but they've selected three corridors for further evaluation:
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/short-list-corridors-69-ohio-river-crossing/

The three alternatives advanced are: West Corridor 1, West Corridor 2, and Central Corridor 1.

Quote

Three Corridors are Moving Forward for Further Evaluation

Henderson, Ky. — The I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) Project Team has identified a short list of corridors for the possible location of a new I-69 bridge. After completing the screening process, West Corridor 1, West Corridor 2 and Central Corridor 1 are identified as the corridors with the greatest potential to meet the project’s purpose and need. A No Build Alternative is also carried forward for comparison.

“We identified five broad corridors in April,”  said Janelle Lemon, Indiana Department of Transportation project manager. “Since then, our Project Team has been collecting data for each corridor, along with gathering feedback from the public, agencies and stakeholders. This information has helped us identify the corridors that make the most sense for additional study.”

A wide variety of information has been gathered for each corridor, including where homes and businesses are located, along with identifying historic structures and potential environmental impacts.

“Our Project Team is moving forward to further develop alternatives in each corridor,”  said Marshall Carrier, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet project manager. “This work will include detailed field surveys, impact assessment and engineering analyses. No decisions have been made. Our team will continue to develop each corridor and study cost, impact, community support and financial feasibility.”

Corridors Not Moving Forward

Two corridors are not recommended for further evaluation, the East Corridor and Central Corridor 2.

The East Corridor is the longest corridor with the largest amount of new roadway, and would require a major bridge over the Green River. It has the highest estimated construction costs (at least $1 billion) and high maintenance costs. The East Corridor also has the greatest impact on farms, rivers and streams and floodplains.

Central Corridor 2 includes the second highest amount of new roadway and second-highest operations costs. It has second highest impacts to wetlands, river and streams, floodplains and farmland. While similar to Central Corridor 1, it has higher construction and long-term maintenance costs and is not recommended for further evaluation.

Corridors Moving Forward in the DEIS

Three corridors are recommended for further evaluation in development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): West Corridor 1, West Corridor 2 and Central Corridor 1. As required by law, a No Build Alternative is also carried forward for comparison. It assumes an I-69 Ohio River Crossing is not built, and provides a benchmark against which the impacts of other corridors can be compared. While these three corridors merit additional study, no decisions have been made on which is the best corridor.

Both West Corridors would replace the existing US 41 bridges, resulting in the lowest long-term maintenance costs for the states. The West Corridors have modest impacts to environmental resources, but both would impact many residences and businesses in Henderson.

“These are impacts that will be examined carefully and reviewed thoroughly,”  said Carrier. “The West Corridors would keep traffic in the US 41 corridor, supporting its further development. We’ll continue to work with the Henderson community to better understand how I-69 could fit into the community’s long-term vision.”

Because impacts are comparable in most categories and estimated cost is similar ($910 million to just over $1 billion), the states feel both West Corridors warrant further study.

Central Corridor 1 is also recommended for further evaluation. It’s the shortest corridor, resulting in the least amount of new roadway. It has considerable impacts to farmland, wetlands and forested habitat, but would impact the fewest residences and no businesses.

Estimated construction costs for Central Corridor 1 are the lowest ($740-$860 million), however the cost estimate does not include a long-term solution for the US 41 bridges. Development of this corridor will include identifying a long-term solution for the US 41 bridges. This will include:

    The evaluation of the removal of one existing US 41 bridge from service
    The evaluation of the removal of both US 41 bridges from service
    The evaluation of removing truck traffic from the existing US 41 bridges
    The evaluation of tolling US 41 bridges to assist in making long-term cross-river mobility financially feasible for the area

What Happens Next

The project team will further develop alternatives in each corridor to a more advanced level of design, and will carefully study each corridor to examine cost, impact, community support and financial feasibility.

A preferred alternative is expected to be identified by fall of 2018. A Record of Decision (ROD) is expected by late 2019.

The information gathered will allow executive leadership in both states to make an informed decision and deliver an I-69 Ohio River Crossing.

The short list of corridors will be discussed in detail at two upcoming open houses (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/public-meeting-dates-announced-reveal-short-list-alternatives/).

Screening Process Summary Map (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Screening-Process-Summary-Map.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 21, 2017, 08:45:53 AM
What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 21, 2017, 10:13:42 AM
What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).

why would the call for the removal of the 41 bridges with the big rehab they are doing now on them?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 21, 2017, 10:16:49 AM
What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).

why would the call for the removal of the 41 bridges with the big rehab they are doing now on them?

They are expensive to maintain overall. A removal may not occur immediately after the bridge is rehabbed, but maybe after 10-20 years it will seriously be considered.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on July 21, 2017, 11:07:50 AM
It would seem that, of the remaining options, Central Corridor 1 would be the cheapest, have the least impact on existing businesses and residences, and cause the least disruption to the existing bridges and roads while under construction.  I cannot imagine what a cluster US41 will be if either of the West options are chosen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: compdude787 on July 21, 2017, 11:25:35 AM
It would seem that, of the remaining options, Central Corridor 1 would be the cheapest, have the least impact on existing businesses and residences, and cause the least disruption to the existing bridges and roads while under construction.  I cannot imagine what a cluster US41 will be if either of the West options are chosen.

I agree. Simply from looking at a map, the Central Corridor 1 is pretty similar to the idea that I came up with.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on July 21, 2017, 12:54:16 PM
The beauty of the central corridor is that it leaves the existing bridge as a local alternative, and thru traffic get srouted away.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on July 21, 2017, 01:25:55 PM
It would seem that, of the remaining options, Central Corridor 1 would be the cheapest, have the least impact on existing businesses and residences, and cause the least disruption to the existing bridges and roads while under construction.  I cannot imagine what a cluster US41 will be if either of the West options are chosen.

I agree. Simply from looking at a map, the Central Corridor 1 is pretty similar to the idea that I came up with.

Same here.  IMHO, it is far and away the best alternative and is what should be built.

I would also redo the south end of the US 41 Henderson Strip to better integrate it into the local street network and farther separate it from the future I-69 mainline.  Think: 'KISS factor' ('Keep It Simple, Stupid').

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: qguy on July 21, 2017, 11:18:50 PM
Or the more pithy and pointed version I heard a lot in the Air Force: KISS OFF. Keep it simple, stupid, or face failure.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 24, 2017, 12:10:45 AM
No build sounds feasible.  So would the central option be something like Meridian, MS or Laurel, MS or Cumberland, MD?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 24, 2017, 01:23:26 AM
No build sounds feasible.  So would the central option be something like Meridian, MS or Laurel, MS or Cumberland, MD?

Probably none of the above.  The original tight-radius curves in Laurel have been fixed; that section of I-59 -- and the one in Meridian -- is typical MS construction of freeways through medium-sized towns; I-22 through New Albany was actually upgraded to similar standard prior to signage.  Cumberland's an anomaly; a "grandfathered-in" substandard freeway segment; while a bit of an obstacle to efficient traffic flow on I-68, it'll probably persist for the foreseeable future.  The Ohio River crossing and approaches will probably be a typical 4-lane facility with full shoulders and a K-rail or thrie-beam barrier on at least the bridge portion; there's no "poison pill" option in the works to make it a low-speed substandard facility. 

There's no logical or rational reason to configure Henderson as a functional Breezewood analog; why such a concept is even being posited is difficult to fathom!  The city will get along just fine with a through-traffic bypass; its economic future hardly depends upon a captive audience of travelers and/or truckers slogging down a main drag!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 24, 2017, 07:37:01 AM
there's 0% chance the no build will happen, it's just there because they have to consider it.  it will be the first option to be eliminated, because it's a stupid idea.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: qguy on July 24, 2017, 09:04:31 AM
The no-build option is a base-line with which to compare every other option.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 24, 2017, 09:28:44 AM
The no-build option is a base-line with which to compare every other option.

that too
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on July 24, 2017, 09:29:51 AM
The no-build option is a base-line with which to compare every other option.

It's a control, like used in..  SCIENCE!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 24, 2017, 12:35:04 PM
Worst case scenario you could always just close the bridges and make US 41 a Cul-de-sac when the lifespan of the current bridges is up.

Although I'm not sure what the issue is considering both states find the money to maintain bridges that have way less traffic/use than the Evansville/Henderson bridges.
 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 24, 2017, 05:20:45 PM
No build sounds feasible.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.  :pan: :pan: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 24, 2017, 07:41:09 PM
Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 24, 2017, 09:56:43 PM
Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P


Believe it or not, the bridges are located entirely within Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2017, 12:04:59 AM
I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt.  They are looking for money as it is.   Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2017, 12:12:08 AM
Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P


Believe it or not, the bridges are located entirely within Kentucky.

And it looks like all the screened options cited in the article follow suit with this circumstance; even the central corridor option #1 (which, IMO, is the most likely eventual choice) has its northern anchorage within Kentucky -- although not by much, according to the map.  Nevertheless, there's not a chance in hell that KY will be on the hook for the full cost of the bridge (although it's likely to be the "lead" jurisdiction); it'll be a joint project between the two affected states. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: codyg1985 on July 25, 2017, 08:03:53 AM
Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P


Believe it or not, the bridges are located entirely within Kentucky.

True but Indiana has committed to a cost-sharing agreement with Kentucky on the bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 25, 2017, 08:04:33 AM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 25, 2017, 08:05:34 AM
I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt.  They are looking for money as it is.   Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?

the way kentucky is building roads currently you wouldnt think they have money issues. i'm sure hbelkins can answer this one
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on July 25, 2017, 10:23:12 AM
Maybe the gas tax increase in Indiana will give them the incentive to rebuild the bridges in the future.  Then again Indiana seems to always give Evansville the shaft. 

Nexus 6P


Believe it or not, the bridges are located entirely within Kentucky.

True but Indiana has committed to a cost-sharing agreement with Kentucky on the bridges.

I thought the bridge(s) would be tolled.  If so, then I'm not seeing why KY's funding issues are a problem.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2017, 12:56:57 PM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though.
There is a significant portion of Kentucky on the "Indiana" side of the Ohio.  There is a whole state road, SR 3552 and a race track long past the approach of US 41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2017, 03:33:09 PM
I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt.  They are looking for money as it is.   Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?

Other than the Brent Spence Bridge replacement, Kentucky could spend not one single dollar in new construction in Louisville or Boone/Campbell/Kenton counties for the next 10 years and no one would ever notice the difference.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2017, 09:11:45 PM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
I'd consider the elevated parts of the approaches to be part of the bridge, so most of them actually do have part of the bridge over Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2017, 10:29:21 PM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
I'd consider the elevated parts of the approaches to be part of the bridge, so most of them actually do have part of the bridge over Indiana.

The state line is the low-water mark on the north side of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792, when Kentucky became a state. Kentucky and Indiana do have maintenance agreements on the bridges -- Kentucky maintains some and Indiana maintains others. But the US 41 bridges are entirely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed significantly. I don't know when that occurred, but the fact remains that you don't cross the state line when you cross one of those bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 25, 2017, 10:33:27 PM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
I'd consider the elevated parts of the approaches to be part of the bridge, so most of them actually do have part of the bridge over Indiana.

The state line is the low-water mark on the north side of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792, when Kentucky became a state. Kentucky and Indiana do have maintenance agreements on the bridges -- Kentucky maintains some and Indiana maintains others. But the US 41 bridges are entirely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed significantly. I don't know when that occurred, but the fact remains that you don't cross the state line when you cross one of those bridges.

it must have change a lot since then, there's a road in evansville called riverside drive (not the piece that actually is near the shore) that is no where near the ohio. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 25, 2017, 10:48:52 PM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
I'd consider the elevated parts of the approaches to be part of the bridge, so most of them actually do have part of the bridge over Indiana.

The state line is the low-water mark on the north side of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792, when Kentucky became a state. Kentucky and Indiana do have maintenance agreements on the bridges -- Kentucky maintains some and Indiana maintains others. But the US 41 bridges are entirely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed significantly. I don't know when that occurred, but the fact remains that you don't cross the state line when you cross one of those bridges.

it must have change a lot since then, there's a road in evansville called riverside drive (not the piece that actually is near the shore) that is no where near the ohio. 

According to wikipedia, the new madrid earthquake shifted the course of the river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 25, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Wow

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 26, 2017, 02:49:00 PM
The New Madrid quake (and written/spoken stories from those that witnessed it-mostly Native Americans) and the possibility of a new quake are a small part of the thought about putting another crossing on the Ohio.  The current bridges are definitely not earthquake resistant. 

Of course, if there was another quake like the New Madrid (which was probably in the 8.0 range) you would likely have every bridge from Mississippi to north of St. Louis either destroyed or seriously damaged, and the same could be said on the Ohio from it's mouth to Louisville.  We'd be all screwed trying to cross the Ohio at that little ferry in Southern Illinois.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 26, 2017, 03:40:28 PM
The Cave-in-Rock ferry.  I have been on that thing.  We would all be screwed if that was the only thing going.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 26, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
Kentucky has done a lot of seismic retrofitting on bridges in the western part of the state over the past 20 or so years. (Tennessee, too; you can see some of the work along a lot of the US 51 overpasses between Dyersburg and Union City). I doubt there's much they could do to the old US 45 bridge, but I don't know what's been done to the I-24 bridge, the Shawneetown Bridge, or either of the current US 41 bridges. I'd say the new US 231 bridge was built to be seismic-resistant.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 26, 2017, 08:02:12 PM
The New Madrid quake (and written/spoken stories from those that witnessed it-mostly Native Americans) and the possibility of a new quake are a small part of the thought about putting another crossing on the Ohio.  The current bridges are definitely not earthquake resistant. 

Of course, if there was another quake like the New Madrid (which was probably in the 8.0 range) you would likely have every bridge from Mississippi to north of St. Louis either destroyed or seriously damaged, and the same could be said on the Ohio from it's mouth to Louisville.  We'd be all screwed trying to cross the Ohio at that little ferry in Southern Illinois.
The Cave-in-Rock ferry.  I have been on that thing.  We would all be screwed if that was the only thing going.

If a 7.3+ quake hits the New Madrid, everyone in the affected area will be basically screwed in general -- never mind having to cross a river; that'd be way down the priority list!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on July 27, 2017, 10:00:12 AM
The New Madrid quake (and written/spoken stories from those that witnessed it-mostly Native Americans) and the possibility of a new quake are a small part of the thought about putting another crossing on the Ohio.  The current bridges are definitely not earthquake resistant. 

Of course, if there was another quake like the New Madrid (which was probably in the 8.0 range) you would likely have every bridge from Mississippi to north of St. Louis either destroyed or seriously damaged, and the same could be said on the Ohio from it's mouth to Louisville.  We'd be all screwed trying to cross the Ohio at that little ferry in Southern Illinois.
The Cave-in-Rock ferry.  I have been on that thing.  We would all be screwed if that was the only thing going.

If a 7.3+ quake hits the New Madrid, everyone in the affected area will be basically screwed in general -- never mind having to cross a river; that'd be way down the priority list!

In a national emergency, many things might be mobilized. Temporary ferry landings, and multiple ferry boats to take care of interstate-volume river crossings, and fast-track contracts like the I-35 Minneapolis bridge collapse that restored service within a year.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 27, 2017, 11:20:31 AM
With a major Midwest/Mid-South earthquake, would cause a transportation headache for cars, trains, trucks, gas/oil, etc.  That doesn't even go into the extent that buildings would have to be fixed.  There would have to be a World War II type mobilization that could last a couple of decades to get everything fully back up and running the way it was before.  Let's hope that doesn't happen and we just quibble about how many lanes go on the new bridge, when they will actually get construction started, and will Tennessee bite the bullet and convert US 51 to I-69 this century.

Changing the subject, just how many people really care while traveling in KY, how many miles it is to Fulton?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 27, 2017, 12:28:25 PM
With a major Midwest/Mid-South earthquake, would cause a transportation headache for cars, trains, trucks, gas/oil, etc.  That doesn't even go into the extent that buildings would have to be fixed.  There would have to be a World War II type mobilization that could last a couple of decades to get everything fully back up and running the way it was before.  Let's hope that doesn't happen and we just quibble about how many lanes go on the new bridge, when they will actually get construction started, and will Tennessee bite the bullet and convert US 51 to I-69 this century.

Changing the subject, just how many people really care while traveling in KY, how many miles it is to Fulton?
US 51 is more than sufficient in TN.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 27, 2017, 03:07:10 PM

Changing the subject, just how many people really care while traveling in KY, how many miles it is to Fulton?

Interestingly, Fulton is signed along the former Pennyrile and WK Parkways that are now part of I-69. If you're traveling west on the WK, there are no mentions of Paducah beyond the Pennyrile interchange until you get to I-24. And oddly enough, the new signs there don't mention Fulton.

Conversely, if you're exiting I-24 onto the former WK, it's signed for Elizabethtown, not Henderson. You don't see Henderson signed until you get to the Pennyrile interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 27, 2017, 03:38:49 PM
What is the current to date status of I-69 signage in KY?  Wasn't there pork spending involved in the signage?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 27, 2017, 03:59:29 PM
What is the current to date status of I-69 signage in KY?  Wasn't there pork spending involved in the signage?

HB is probably chapter & verse on this, but AFAIK I-69's current signage is on (a) the Pennyrile north of WKY, (b) the (former) WKY from I-24 to the Pennyrile, and (c) the multiplex with I-24 between the Purchase and former WKY parkways; signage of the Purchase won't happen until interchanges & transitions are modified.  The signage itself isn't "pork" per se but an integral part of the upgrade contracts.  Of course, if one considers the entire I-69 project to be "pork", then it would follow that the signage would fall into that category as well. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 28, 2017, 02:53:33 PM
HB is probably chapter & verse on this, but AFAIK I-69's current signage is on (a) the Pennyrile north of WKY, (b) the (former) WKY from I-24 to the Pennyrile, and (c) the multiplex with I-24 between the Purchase and former WKY parkways; signage of the Purchase won't happen until interchanges & transitions are modified.  The signage itself isn't "pork" per se but an integral part of the upgrade contracts.  Of course, if one considers the entire I-69 project to be "pork", then it would follow that the signage would fall into that category as well.

I-69 is signed from the I-24/Purchase Parkway interchange concurrent with I-24 to the exit for the former Western Kentucky Parkway. It is then signed to the Pennyrile Parkway interchange on the former WK, then along the former Pennyrile Parkway to the US 41 (former KY 425) exit south of Henderson. Signage was a separate contract for each segment (I-24/WK and Pennyrile) and wasn't done until the road upgrades were completed. There's still construction ongoing at the Mortons Gap interchange on the Pennyrile (KY 813) but it's nearly finished.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 28, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
HB is probably chapter & verse on this, but AFAIK I-69's current signage is on (a) the Pennyrile north of WKY, (b) the (former) WKY from I-24 to the Pennyrile, and (c) the multiplex with I-24 between the Purchase and former WKY parkways; signage of the Purchase won't happen until interchanges & transitions are modified.  The signage itself isn't "pork" per se but an integral part of the upgrade contracts.  Of course, if one considers the entire I-69 project to be "pork", then it would follow that the signage would fall into that category as well.

I-69 is signed from the I-24/Purchase Parkway interchange concurrent with I-24 to the exit for the former Western Kentucky Parkway. It is then signed to the Pennyrile Parkway interchange on the former WK, then along the former Pennyrile Parkway to the US 41 (former KY 425) exit south of Henderson. Signage was a separate contract for each segment (I-24/WK and Pennyrile) and wasn't done until the road upgrades were completed. There's still construction ongoing at the Mortons Gap interchange on the Pennyrile (KY 813) but it's nearly finished.

Didn't know that signage was done in KY under separate contract; here in CA it's normally embedded in the final phase of paving and finishing.  Learn something new every day!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 28, 2017, 05:09:14 PM
Didn't know that signage was done in KY under separate contract; here in CA it's normally embedded in the final phase of paving and finishing.  Learn something new every day!

In most new construction projects it is, but these were just spot improvements so they did signage for the entire corridors in separate contracts.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2017, 06:47:21 PM
What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).


Replying a week late, but regarding your #2, both of the West Corridor alignments do have 3 lanes in each direction on the river bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 30, 2017, 04:17:20 PM
I saw that description of the west bridges a couple of days after I made the post.  Getting rid of both of the existing bridges will rid the area of a free crossing (other than Owensboro-30 miles or Shawneetown-50 miles) and no emergency crossing if the new bridges have a major incident.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on July 30, 2017, 05:33:24 PM
I don't recall seeing anything saying that they had made the decision to toll the I-69 bridge, only that they were considering the option.  Has something changed?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 30, 2017, 11:05:07 PM
i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
I'd consider the elevated parts of the approaches to be part of the bridge, so most of them actually do have part of the bridge over Indiana.

The state line is the low-water mark on the north side of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792, when Kentucky became a state. Kentucky and Indiana do have maintenance agreements on the bridges -- Kentucky maintains some and Indiana maintains others. But the US 41 bridges are entirely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed significantly. I don't know when that occurred, but the fact remains that you don't cross the state line when you cross one of those bridges.

it must have change a lot since then, there's a road in evansville called riverside drive (not the piece that actually is near the shore) that is no where near the ohio.

Riverside Drive runs along the river through the downtown area. It never ran along the river after that. Riverside Drive is where it is going SE from downtown because most of the land south of it to the river is in the flood plain. Supposedly the 1792 mark runs just south and parallel to Waterworks Road.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 31, 2017, 09:03:18 AM
I don't recall seeing anything saying that they had made the decision to toll the I-69 bridge, only that they were considering the option.  Has something changed?

Almost all discussions locally involve tolling, since it is thought that a revenue stream will be needed to pay for the bridge rather than drain both state's general road funds.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2017, 02:18:49 PM
I don't recall seeing anything saying that they had made the decision to toll the I-69 bridge, only that they were considering the option.  Has something changed?

Almost all discussions locally involve tolling, since it is thought that a revenue stream will be needed to pay for the bridge rather than drain both state's general road funds.

That raises the question:  if the new-bridge option selected involves eliminating the US 41 bridges -- and tolls were part of the package -- how would local usage, which heretofore has been free -- be addressed?  My guess would be that local residents would either be given cards or devices which allowed free passage -- or at least a steeply discounted rate!  Of course, if the central option is chosen -- which would leave at least one of the existing bridges intact -- the point would be moot -- although that also provides a known-quantity routing for shunpiking.  If that situation were to come about, I'd venture that the signals through Henderson would be reset to what is termed "traffic calming" (although the "calm" syllable is often colloquially replaced with another 4-letter word by drivers!) to render through passage highly inefficient.  It'll be interesting to see how all these factors play out in the bridge alignment decision.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on August 11, 2017, 10:55:56 AM
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/central-corridor-is-top-choice-in-i-69-ohio-river-crossing/786692348

In shocking news, Bridgelink recommended to the I-69 Bridges project manager that they pick the central corridor (new bridge) plan that they originally came up with.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 11, 2017, 11:04:04 AM
central 1 benefits henderson the most, i bet that's the one they pick.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 11, 2017, 04:48:07 PM
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/central-corridor-is-top-choice-in-i-69-ohio-river-crossing/786692348

In shocking news, Bridgelink recommended to the I-69 Bridges project manager that they pick the central corridor (new bridge) plan that they originally came up with.
central 1 benefits henderson the most, i bet that's the one they pick.

It's likely that the option that would be favored on both sides of the river would be the one that results in two individual crossings -- the new I-69 bridge and the existing US 41 structure -- even if only one of the original twin bridges is retained.  That would provide for some degree of separation of local and through traffic as well as redundancy in case of congestion or incidents impairing either crossing. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on August 11, 2017, 06:11:00 PM
The article says the central option "will cut down on the number of miles of new terrain needed", but don't the west corridors have fewer new terrain miles?  The east options and central 2 were already eliminated from consideration.

The central option is certainly less disruptive to Henderson, though, and no doubt has less expensive ROW despite having more mileage.

Hopefully Kentucky can put US 41 back where it belongs.  That US 41/KY 425/KY 2084 change is awkward as hell.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on August 11, 2017, 07:56:04 PM
The article says the central option "will cut down on the number of miles of new terrain needed", but don't the west corridors have fewer new terrain miles?  The east options and central 2 were already eliminated from consideration.

The reporter probably paraphrased the press release wrong. It says (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/short-list-corridors-69-ohio-river-crossing/) Central Corridor 1 is "the shortest corridor, resulting in the least amount of new roadway. It has considerable impacts to farmland, wetlands and forested habitat, but would impact the fewest residences and no businesses."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2017, 01:10:19 PM
I guess I don't see how Central 1 can be "the least amount of new roadway" of the three remaining corridors.  It's 8.5 miles from where it diverges from US 41 to exit 3 in Indiana, of which 8 miles are new terrain construction and 0.5 miles are former I-164.  The west corridors are 9.9 miles between these points, but include 1.4 miles of existing US 41 to Henderson, 2.9 miles of existing US 41 across the Ohio River (albeit likely with replacing the bridges), and 2.3 miles of former I-164, 6.6 miles of existing roadway in total, and so only have 3.3 miles of new terrain construction.  Even if you exclude the part of US 41 near the Ohio River (which will need upgrading), it's only 6.2 miles of construction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 12, 2017, 03:21:04 PM
I guess I don't see how Central 1 can be "the least amount of new roadway" of the three remaining corridors.  It's 8.5 miles from where it diverges from US 41 to exit 3 in Indiana, of which 8 miles are new terrain construction and 0.5 miles are former I-164.  The west corridors are 9.9 miles between these points, but include 1.4 miles of existing US 41 to Henderson, 2.9 miles of existing US 41 across the Ohio River (albeit likely with replacing the bridges), and 2.3 miles of former I-164, 6.6 miles of existing roadway in total, and so only have 3.3 miles of new terrain construction.  Even if you exclude the part of US 41 near the Ohio River (which will need upgrading), it's only 6.2 miles of construction.

Re the "least amount of roadway":  They're either counting the frontage/slip roads that would be part of any in-town alignment next to the existing US 41, or they're simply engaging in wishful hyperbole!  In any case, it's clear that the regional consensus points toward Central 1; the other options are probably there to placate those who would prefer only a single crossing remain after the dust settles -- letting them know that their preferences are still in the mix. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on September 28, 2017, 02:30:07 PM
central 1 benefits henderson the most, i bet that's the one they pick.

This article (http://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2017/09/26/city-officials-throw-support-behind-one-three-69-routes/705671001/) reports that Henderson city officials are indeed supporting Central 1:

Quote
Henderson City Commissioners and Mayor Steve Austin officially threw their support behind one of the three Interstate 69 Ohio River crossing routes currently being considered for Henderson.
After several landowners spoke up in favor of a route further east in the county, Central Corridor No. 2, which is no longer being considered by state and federal officials, the panel of commissioners and Austin voted unanimously on a resolution of support for Central Corridor 1 .....
"It's the least expensive, causes the least disruption in our community and third, it offers a redundancy of crossing the Ohio River … the other two routes would leave only one crossing," Austin said. "Sometimes we have to make the best of the choices available to us."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on December 19, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/plans-i69-ohio-river-crossing-set-revealed-february-134512/

Quote from: Indiana Public Media
A group working on an environmental impact statement for an I-69 bridge connecting Evansville and western Kentucky says it’s making progress.

Mindy Peterson of I-69 Ohio River Crossing — or ORX — says the group has gathered a tremendous amount of information and expects to deliver more during open houses in early February.

Dan Prevost is the environmental lead for ORX. He said a navigation analysis has been performed and passed on to the Coast Guard.

“And preliminary they’ve said that actually either a single navigation span or a two navigation span arrangement could work,”  Prevost says.

In July, the group narrowed the number of potential bridge corridors to three, with a central corridor just east of the existing U.S. 41 Twin Bridges favored among elected officials.

Prevost would not say which of the three corridors presents the fewest environmental issues.

“They each have their own set of challenges. They all have different challenges or potential impacts depending on the resources you’re talking about,”  Prevost says.

Prevost also said tolling is not a foregone conclusion on a new bridge or on the Twin Bridges, if they remain.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is due next fall. A final statement and decision is expected in fall 2019.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 31, 2018, 06:19:12 PM
From INDOT:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES
Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC)
public open houses to present refined alternatives for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) project
The I-69 ORX Project Team will hold two open houses to inform and solicit feedback from residents and motorists about the refined alternatives being evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a modern Ohio River crossing between Henderson, KY, and Evansville, IN.
The first open house will be held from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. Central time on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at Henderson Community College, Preston Arts Center, 2660 S. Green St., Henderson, KY. Doors will open at 4:30 p.m.
A second open house will be held from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. Central time on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, at Benjamin Bosse High School, 1300 Washington Ave., Evansville, IN. Doors will open at 4:30 p.m.
Each open house will include two brief presentations from the Project Team at 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The team will be on hand to address questions and comments before and after the presentations. 
Copies of open house materials will be available online by Tuesday, February 6, at www.I69ohiorivercrossing.com and at the project offices located at (Indiana office) 320 Eagle Crest Drive, Suite C, Evansville, IN 47715, and (Kentucky office) 1970 Barrett Court, Suite 100, Henderson, KY 42420. The Evansville office is open Monday, Tuesday and Thursday; the Henderson office is open Wednesday and Friday. Standard office hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT or by appointment.
Following the meeting, written comments may be sent to the aforementioned addresses or to info@I69OhioRiverCrossing.com.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), persons with disabilities or representing an ADA and/or Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population are encouraged to contact the I-69 ORX project team at 888-515-9756 in advance with regard to coordinating services such as participation at the meeting venue, language, visual and audio interpretation services.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on February 01, 2018, 09:31:53 AM
http://www.courierpress.com/story/news/2018/01/31/details-emerge-possible-69-routes/1084969001/
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4364026-I-69-ORX-Preliminary-Alternatives-Map.html#document/p1
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4364025-I-69-ORX-Preliminary-Alternatives-Handout.html#document/p1

Quote from:
More details are available about the three remaining routes under consideration for a new Interstate 69 Ohio River bridge.

In each scenario, travelers to and from Evansville and Henderson will have six lanes of traffic, with at least four of those on I-69. The two west alternatives generally follow the path of U.S. 41, while the central alternative is further east..

Quote
The three remaining routes, and some of the new information available:

West Alternative 1 would bring a new four-lane I-69 bridge and two-way traffic would remain on one U.S. 41 bridge. It also includes a reconstructed U.S. 60 interchange and new interchanges at Watson Lane and U.S. 41/Veterans Memorial Parkway.

It would keep traffic on U.S. 41 corridor and maintain businesses in the area. The Eagle Slough recreation area is avoided. The estimated cost is $1.47 billion and includes maintenance costs for both the new and old bridges.

West Alternative 2 would bring a new six-lane I-69 bridge, and both U.S. 41 bridges would go out of service. It also includes a reconstructed U.S. 60 interchange and new interchanges at Watson Lane, Wolf Hills/Stratman Road, Nugent Drive and U.S. 41/Veterans Memorial Parkway.

It would keep traffic on the U.S. 41 corridor, but businesses along the west side of U.S. 41 are impacted. Eagle Slough is avoided. The estimated cost is $1.49 billion and includes new bridge maintenance.

Central Alternative 1, the popular choice among local elected officials in Evansville and Henderson, would bring a new four-lane I-69 bridge east of Ellis Park. One U.S. 41 bridge would remain in use with two-way traffic.

The alignment has been shifted to avoid a wetland mitigation site and historic properties at U.S. 60, officials said. The estimated cost is $1.42 billion and includes maintenance of the new and old bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 01, 2018, 10:19:18 AM
i like the one the locals like, central
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 01, 2018, 11:22:21 AM
I like Central 1, as it impacts fewer residences, but I don't like the idea of only keeping one US 41 bridge. I think both of those bridges should be maintained until such time that it becomes cost-prohibitive to maintain the older of the two structures.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 01, 2018, 01:35:39 PM
The Breezewood option preserves the business district of Henderson KY and should be something that the chamber should be supporting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on February 01, 2018, 02:04:49 PM
I grew up in Evansville and have driven that 2.5 - 3  mile section of US 41 in Henderson for decades.  I only quit driving it less than 3 years ago when my dad moved from Evansville to a retirement community in the Louisville area.  US 41 is a nightmare of intense commercial strip development, with much of it being blighted or borderline blighted, and an uncontrolled number of driveways several traffic lights and numerous crashes, as well as a bad northbound left-turn lane drop on a curve immediately north of the US 60 intersection.  I have had near-misses myself on that section of roadway through the years. 

You can't compare it with "Breezewood", which is only 1500 feet long and has a relative handful of businesses compared to US 41 in Henderson.  The problems with that strip on US 41 probably hurts business in Henderson more than it helps it in the long run.   They need to bypass that strip for through traffic.  It is too far gone to try to fix it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on February 01, 2018, 04:16:58 PM
The Breezewood option preserves the business district of Henderson KY and should be something that the chamber should be supporting.

I didn't realize there was a Breezewood option!  From the documents cited, there will be a freeway facility somewhere connecting the Indiana freeway segment to the Pennyrile section of I-69.  Period.  Breezewood is a situation that simply isn't transportable to other circumstances (at least outside of PA!) -- regardless of how some folks just won't be disabused of the concept.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: lordsutch on February 01, 2018, 05:38:52 PM
I think most towns, Henderson included, are trying to get out of the situation of their public face being stoplight-infested commercial strips with fast-food restaurants, downmarket motels, and gas stations on the "main drag" in favor of reviving walkable downtown business districts.

Also, the original Breezewood is less than 1000 linear feet of roadway, so it's somewhat harder to justify large-scale construction to bypass it–westbound a surface-level 25 mph loop ramp tying into the tollbooth spur to US 30 would be sufficient and even a high-speed ORT loop to the Turnpike mainline probably could be built at relatively low cost, but I-70's mainline seems to have been designed deliberately to ensure it would require substantial reconstruction to put in place any direct ramp from either the Turnpike proper or the tollbooth spur eastbound. Henderson's commercial strip is much longer and a substantially more burdensome passage for through traffic (and has a lot more intermingled local use, since Henderson isn't just a sleepy village in the middle of nowhere like Breezewood).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 01, 2018, 09:00:58 PM
I haven't been off US 41 in Henderson for years, but isn't most of the newer commercial development somewhere else?

And US 41 is a long way from downtown.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 01, 2018, 09:08:33 PM
There's a little commercial development along US 60 just east of the US 41 interchange on the north side of Henderson. Personally I don't see how anything other than the Central alternative is realistically feasible, I think the two western alternatives left are just window dressing at this point.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 02, 2018, 02:54:54 AM
The Breezewood option preserves the business district of Henderson KY and should be something that the chamber should be supporting.

The good folks at the Chamber know it's a fool's errand to put an interstate through that clustered mess.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on February 02, 2018, 07:26:19 AM
They are billing the Central Option as the cheapest, being 50 million dollars less than the other two options that involve the current Henderson strip, but I wonder if that is accurate.  I would think, even though there is more new routing on the Central Option, that it might be 100 or 200 million less due to the fact that they are only making a 4 lane bridge on the Central (which I think is a mistake) and they won't have to buy commercial property and elevate areas along the strip with that alternative.  Even with the interstate being moved, that strip won't lose that much business, since I believe the majority of the patrons are local Evansville/Henderson residents.  Anyway, they probably have close to 10 years to make the transition with the advanced timetable.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 02, 2018, 08:59:16 AM
Evansville and points North have always been my destination.  Henderson was never my destination.  I have shopped, put fuel in the vehicle and dined there.  I likely won't any longer if I-69 is run through.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 02, 2018, 11:23:15 AM
Evansville and points North have always been my destination.  Henderson was never my destination.  I have shopped, put fuel in the vehicle and dined there.  I likely won't any longer if I-69 is run through.

Where will you do that, then? There's a whole lotta nothing between Madisonville and Bloomington, Henderson/Evansville being the glaring exception.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Aaron Camp on February 02, 2018, 11:58:30 AM
I'm a strong proponent of the Central Option that involves a new I-69 bridge over the Ohio River a few miles east/upstream of the current US-41 bridges and a true Henderson bypass...Henderson is not Louisville or Indianapolis, where routing a freeway right through built-up neighborhoods can be justified, and either of the two western options would just lead to more traffic congestion in Henderson, and probably Evansville to a lesser extent. Also, since I-69 is going to be a true Evansville bypass once the Ohio River bridge is built, then why not bypass Henderson as well?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 03, 2018, 09:38:14 PM
Evansville and points North have always been my destination.  Henderson was never my destination.  I have shopped, put fuel in the vehicle and dined there.  I likely won't any longer if I-69 is run through.

So the daily commuters and through traffic should endure the stoplight infested mess of the Henderson strip because you like to purchase gas along there every so often?

It's not like they are going to close US 41. When the interstate is done, you can still take your little self right down US 41, and lovingly glare at McDonalds, Wendy's, Subway and the other generic fast food joints that clog the road.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 03, 2018, 10:13:06 PM
they should do central, and rebuild both us 41 bridges.  is the 69 bridge going to be a toll bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on February 06, 2018, 02:41:50 AM
they should do central, and rebuild both us 41 bridges.  is the 69 bridge going to be a toll bridge?

That'd be nice, but I understand it's not an option they'd consider.  Maybe they could replace the SB bridge with a wider, possibly undivided 4-lane built in the way that the Milton-Madison bridge was.  It's a thought.

Yes, the 69 bridge will be tolled.  I'd be shocked if they didn't extend the Louisville River Link system to it.  Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on February 06, 2018, 04:26:24 PM
they should do central, and rebuild both us 41 bridges.  is the 69 bridge going to be a toll bridge?

That'd be nice, but I understand it's not an option they'd consider.  Maybe they could replace the SB bridge with a wider, possibly undivided 4-lane built in the way that the Milton-Madison bridge was.  It's a thought.

Yes, the 69 bridge will be tolled.  I'd be shocked if they didn't extend the Louisville River Link system to it.  Makes sense to me.

With the delays and funding issues endemic to the I-69 bridge project, it would be unlikely that an on-site replacement for the US 41 bridge pair would even be on the radar for quite some time after I-69 is completed here.  Obviously, the economics of maintenance figure into the (potential) choice to eliminate the older of the two US 41 spans; that in itself is an indication that if the eastern I-69 option is indeed the final selection, the whole regional river crossing concept will be undertaken with an unwavering eye on the bottom line -- let tolls make the new crossing feasible, and let reduced maintenance make retaining at least one US 41 crossing also doable!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on February 09, 2018, 10:17:51 PM
They have posted videos of the West and Central alternatives.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/videos/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on February 09, 2018, 10:52:28 PM
I'm not a fan of the tie-in's for the Central Alternative.  For the US 41 connector the trumpet interchange should be closer to where I-69 branches off from the existing roadway.  For the north end there is too much out of direction travel for EB Veterans Parkway to NB I-69 - a more direct connection ought to be used rather than the extremely large loop ramp.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 09, 2018, 11:57:12 PM
there is no way they pick any of the west routes, those are both insane, they'd totally fuck up henderson with those routes
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brooks on February 10, 2018, 12:58:17 AM
You're right. The central option isn't perfect but it's the best of the available options by a long shot.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Roadsguy on February 10, 2018, 01:05:59 AM
That is a big loop ramp in the Central alternative...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on February 10, 2018, 10:58:54 AM
I'm not a fan of the tie-in's for the Central Alternative.  For the US 41 connector the trumpet interchange should be closer to where I-69 branches off from the existing roadway.  For the north end there is too much out of direction travel for EB Veterans Parkway to NB I-69 - a more direct connection ought to be used rather than the extremely large loop ramp.

Completely agree. That seems like a lot of extra pavement, and out of direction travel for both. Veterans Parkway carries a lot of commuter traffic from downtown Evansville to the far east side and Newburgh.  My guess is during rush hour, there will be more traffic feeding the interchange from Veterans than coming off I-69 from the south.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 10, 2018, 08:58:55 PM
That loop ramp almost certainly is going to have to be changed. Since we haven't even picked a preferred choice yet there should still be time for people to demand something a little more practical then that. Otherwise the central alternative still looks good.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on February 11, 2018, 02:04:54 PM
At the south end of the Central alternative, why is the US41 junction so far east?  It seems as if they could build it closer to the point 69 diverges from the existing roadway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Grzrd on June 18, 2018, 04:46:53 PM
This article (https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/i-69-ohio-river-crossing-project-team-updates-alternatives-and-cost-estimates/1246928323) provldes an update on the Ohio River Crossing project::

Quote
Here are the updates:

West Alternative 1 and West Alternative 2
The connection between US 41 and US 60 has been modified to reduce impacts to residences and businesses.
A retaining wall has been added to avoid impacts to a small cemetery within the Merrill Place development.

West Alternative 2
The intersection of Elm Street and Watson Lane has been modified to improve safety and access in the interchange area.

Central Alternative 1
The connection between I-69 and US 41 has been modified to improve access to US 60 and the commercial strip.

“One key change is for Central Alternative 1,”  said Marshall Carrier, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet project manager. “We distributed surveys to more than 900 businesses near the project area and followed up by visiting nearly 100 businesses along the US 41 strip in Henderson. Several business owners were concerned about the connection between I-69 and US 41. More design work was done, changes were made and the result is a more direct connection.” ....

Relocations

West Alternative 1 — Residential: 242 — Business: 27
West Alternative 2 — Residential: 96 — Business: 64
Central Alternative 1 — Residential: 4 — Business: 0

Feedback

The Project Team held two open houses in early February to discuss preliminary alternatives.

Since the open houses, surveys have been received from the public and businesses.

According to the team, most residents support tolling the new I-69 crossing if there is a toll-free crossing also available.

In the survey, another concern raised for West Alternative 1 and 2 were the impact they would have on homes and businesses.

One concern with Central Alternative 1 would be the negative affect for businesses by allowing drivers to bypass US 41.

Here is a snip of the cost estimates:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_06_18_4_45_47.jpeg)

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on June 21, 2018, 10:28:33 AM
If it were up to me, I'd definitely want to route I-69 across the Central Alternative, because that would be the least expensive, and cause very little impact on Henderson proper.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on June 21, 2018, 12:36:50 PM
There are really only 2 options...West 2 which is a 6-lane tolled I-69/US41 bridge getting rid of twin bridges and Central which is 4-lane tolled I-69 bridge and 2-lane tolled US 41 bridge. I know they haven't said that both bridges will be tolled but they have to in order to pay for the I-69 bridge. There are around 40,000 vehicles a day on twin bridges. If you keep the one bridge free, it will have at least 15,000-20,000 crossings a day, leaving the tolled I-69 bridge just 20,000-25,000 per day. No way you fund $1 billion bridge on 25,000 crossings. Louisville has 100,000 crossings to fund there $2.3 billion bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 21, 2018, 03:44:17 PM
There are really only 2 options...West 2 which is a 6-lane tolled I-69/US41 bridge getting rid of twin bridges and Central which is 4-lane tolled I-69 bridge and 2-lane tolled US 41 bridge. I know they haven't said that both bridges will be tolled but they have to in order to pay for the I-69 bridge. There are around 40,000 vehicles a day on twin bridges. If you keep the one bridge free, it will have at least 15,000-20,000 crossings a day, leaving the tolled I-69 bridge just 20,000-25,000 per day. No way you fund $1 billion bridge on 25,000 crossings. Louisville has 100,000 crossings to fund there $2.3 billion bridges.

The only problem with attempting to toll both crossings is the inter-state politics involved; there are quite a few commuters living in Henderson and nearby KY towns that commute to Evansville; they probably constitute a large percentage of the overall volume.  They would require some accommodation if a toll were in their pathway (passes, "freebie" transponders, etc.) that would effectively be non-revenue in nature (or, when administrative costs are figured in, possibly a money loser).  Thus it's more than likely -- and almost definitely if the central option is selected -- that the original US 41 bridge will remain free -- but it's also as likely that only one 2-lane span will remain -- so that any long-distance "shunpiking" will likely encounter congestion -- and be a one-time venture (particularly with commercial transport).  Those two lanes will be adequate for commutes, but not terribly efficient for much of anything else.  But if a single-crossing west alignment is selected (and tolled), then the commute compensation will likely have been absorbed into the long-term fiscal picture. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 04:46:57 PM
I have not heard of any plans to toll the US 41 bridge(s) if a new-location alignment is built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on June 21, 2018, 05:23:25 PM
I'm guessing everyone's okay then with that giant loop from eastbound Veterans Parkway onto northbound I-69 in the Central alternative? It just seems a little obnoxious for those who I presume use that highway from Downtown Evansville to the eastern suburbs as an alternative to the Lloyd Expressway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 22, 2018, 01:30:09 AM
I'm guessing everyone's okay then with that giant loop from eastbound Veterans Parkway onto northbound I-69 in the Central alternative? It just seems a little obnoxious for those who I presume use that highway from Downtown Evansville to the eastern suburbs as an alternative to the Lloyd Expressway.

It looks like they designed it that way to have NB-to-WB and EB-to-NB ramps share a bridge.  It's not the most elegant solution, but it does show they're serious about making it more economical to build. Keep in mind they're going to have to elevate that stretch because it's in the flood plain -- that gets into big $$$.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on June 22, 2018, 09:23:50 AM
I'm guessing everyone's okay then with that giant loop from eastbound Veterans Parkway onto northbound I-69 in the Central alternative? It just seems a little obnoxious for those who I presume use that highway from Downtown Evansville to the eastern suburbs as an alternative to the Lloyd Expressway.

It looks like they designed it that way to have NB-to-WB and EB-to-NB ramps share a bridge.  It's not the most elegant solution, but it does show they're serious about making it more economical to build. Keep in mind they're going to have to elevate that stretch because it's in the flood plain -- that gets into big $$$.
I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on June 22, 2018, 10:03:16 AM
I have not heard of any plans to toll the US 41 bridge(s) if a new-location alignment is built.


I-69 bridge tolls: Eyeing the cost and how they will be collected
Douglas White, The Gleaner Published 9:43 a.m. CT April 19, 2018 | Updated 1:50 p.m. CT April 23, 2018

HENDERSON - When the new I-69 bridge over the Ohio River is completed and open sometime around 2025, one thing is certain: it will cost you every time you go across.

Tolling is "for the financing that is going to have to be part of this project," said Mindy Peterson, spokeswoman for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing, or ORX, project team. "We don't see a situation where there would be enough dollars at the federal and state levels without financing part of this project."

And to pay for that financing, it has always been assumed that the project -- currently estimated to cost $1.4 billion overall -- will come with tolls.

But how will that work? And how much will it cost drivers? And will there be another bridge left across the river that isn't tolled?

Tolling on the new I-69 bridge between Henderson and Evansville will utilize sensors and high-speed cameras. (Photo: Furnished)
 ...

"Toll rates will not be decided by this project team. It just won't happen. Deciding the business rules of tolling will be up to a bi-state body," Peterson said Wednesday, during an I-69 project information session at The Gathering Place senior center in Henderson.

"So it will be officials from Kentucky and Indiana who get together and decide what bridges are going to be tolled. They are going to decide toll rates, and they will decide policy. And policy will be things like, are you going to offer a free transponder when folks open a pre-paid account? ... Are you going to have a frequent-user discounts."

...


"What we don't know right now is, if there's a remaining U.S. 41 bridge, would that bridge have to be tolled?" said Peterson.

"We can't answer that question right now. And this project team won't. It will be the bi-state body. But hypothetically, if that were to be a toll-free option, is that more palatable? Would that work for your lifestyle? Would that work for the trips you're making? At the community conversations that we've had where we've asked that question, a lot of hands have gone up and people have said, 'I can make that work. If it have a toll free option across the river, I can make that work in my life.' "

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on June 22, 2018, 10:06:14 AM
There are really only 2 options...West 2 which is a 6-lane tolled I-69/US41 bridge getting rid of twin bridges and Central which is 4-lane tolled I-69 bridge and 2-lane tolled US 41 bridge. I know they haven't said that both bridges will be tolled but they have to in order to pay for the I-69 bridge. There are around 40,000 vehicles a day on twin bridges. If you keep the one bridge free, it will have at least 15,000-20,000 crossings a day, leaving the tolled I-69 bridge just 20,000-25,000 per day. No way you fund $1 billion bridge on 25,000 crossings. Louisville has 100,000 crossings to fund there $2.3 billion bridges.

The only problem with attempting to toll both crossings is the inter-state politics involved; there are quite a few commuters living in Henderson and nearby KY towns that commute to Evansville; they probably constitute a large percentage of the overall volume.  They would require some accommodation if a toll were in their pathway (passes, "freebie" transponders, etc.) that would effectively be non-revenue in nature (or, when administrative costs are figured in, possibly a money loser).  Thus it's more than likely -- and almost definitely if the central option is selected -- that the original US 41 bridge will remain free -- but it's also as likely that only one 2-lane span will remain -- so that any long-distance "shunpiking" will likely encounter congestion -- and be a one-time venture (particularly with commercial transport).  Those two lanes will be adequate for commutes, but not terribly efficient for much of anything else.  But if a single-crossing west alignment is selected (and tolled), then the commute compensation will likely have been absorbed into the long-term fiscal picture.

I agree as to the local politics, but that "local traffic" will be, based on the Clark Bridge in Louisville, over 15,000 vehicles/day. No way you can fund the I-69 bridge on the "leftover" traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 22, 2018, 12:59:06 PM
There are a few situations like this nationally where a local major arterial is in the line of a new national highway and the funding has to come from tolls to make the new bridge "viable" sooner.

My take is the same as always. No serious traveler or trucking firm is going to get off a major multi-lane, multi-state highway to avoid a toll unless the toll is exceptionally regressive.

Toll the bridge and leave the US41 bridge in place to serve local traffic only.

Once I-69 is completed between Indy and Memphis it will get plenty of traffic to cover its costs.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 22, 2018, 01:50:06 PM
Kentucky could always ban trucks on the US 41 bridge, since it lies entirely within the Bluegrass State.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2018, 02:11:35 PM
I'm generally more accepting of tolls for major bridges/tunnels as long as they are fair and the toll isn't paying for something else than other types of tolls since they are so much more expensive than other infrastructure.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on June 22, 2018, 04:45:09 PM
There are a few situations like this nationally where a local major arterial is in the line of a new national highway and the funding has to come from tolls to make the new bridge "viable" sooner.

My take is the same as always. No serious traveler or trucking firm is going to get off a major multi-lane, multi-state highway to avoid a toll unless the toll is exceptionally regressive.

Toll the bridge and leave the US41 bridge in place to serve local traffic only.

Once I-69 is completed between Indy and Memphis it will get plenty of traffic to cover its costs.



Currently there are around 12,000 "through" vehicles (I-69 ADT south of Henderson) and 27,000 "local" vehicles on twin bridges (39,000 ADT).  Louisville Bridges was a $2.3 billion project with about 100,000 currently paying tolls. This project is estimated at $0.8 billion. If it is 1/3 the cost you need 1/3 the traffic or 33,000 paying vehicles.  The current way from Memphis to Indy per Google Maps is using I-55, I-57, and I-70. I-57 in far Southern Illinois has 12,000 ADT. If every vehicle on that stretch was Memphis to Indy and everyone re-routed to I-69 you still wouldn't have the traffic over the bridge to pay off tolls. (FYI Memphis to Indy via the above or I-69 will be the same mileage...464 miles each so I'm not sure there will be much of a traffic change). The previous financial plan for I-69 bridge projects 2030 traffic at 57,000 ADT. If the locals kept using the free US 41 bridge at current rate of 27,000 ADT there still would not be enough paid traffic to pay for I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 23, 2018, 11:44:19 AM
There are a few situations like this nationally where a local major arterial is in the line of a new national highway and the funding has to come from tolls to make the new bridge "viable" sooner.

My take is the same as always. No serious traveler or trucking firm is going to get off a major multi-lane, multi-state highway to avoid a toll unless the toll is exceptionally regressive.

Toll the bridge and leave the US41 bridge in place to serve local traffic only.

Once I-69 is completed between Indy and Memphis it will get plenty of traffic to cover its costs.



Currently there are around 12,000 "through" vehicles (I-69 ADT south of Henderson) and 27,000 "local" vehicles on twin bridges (39,000 ADT).  Louisville Bridges was a $2.3 billion project with about 100,000 currently paying tolls. This project is estimated at $0.8 billion. If it is 1/3 the cost you need 1/3 the traffic or 33,000 paying vehicles.  The current way from Memphis to Indy per Google Maps is using I-55, I-57, and I-70. I-57 in far Southern Illinois has 12,000 ADT. If every vehicle on that stretch was Memphis to Indy and everyone re-routed to I-69 you still wouldn't have the traffic over the bridge to pay off tolls. (FYI Memphis to Indy via the above or I-69 will be the same mileage...464 miles each so I'm not sure there will be much of a traffic change). The previous financial plan for I-69 bridge projects 2030 traffic at 57,000 ADT. If the locals kept using the free US 41 bridge at current rate of 27,000 ADT there still would not be enough paid traffic to pay for I-69 bridge.

This assumes the tolls will cover the entire cost of the effort.

Unless Kentucky has a specifc ban against doing it, you can use public funds to cover a percentage of the cost and only do toll based revenue bonds on what is left.

Several states use this with their tolled express lanes. The surrounding infrastructure was already paid for with public funds but the incremental additions were covered via toll revenue.

Honestly, those traffic numbers you pulled ARE low. But low ADT's have never stopped certain roads to be built.

I cant say I-69 has defense capabilities in mind. The whole route was predicated on getting the NAFTA bill passed in states that would feel the impact the most.

But I am familiar with the economic requirements in that MSA. An Ohio River bridge that provides better N/S routing for commerce, whereas today its very E/W, would be a very strategic accomplishment even if the the leg to Memphis isnt done for another 10-15 years.



Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on July 01, 2018, 10:33:37 PM
I wonder if a new Terre Haute Northeastern Bypass (to tie into the new IN 641 Bypass leg) or a Western Terre Haute Bypass, in addition to a US 41 to IL 394 connector and/or the Illiana would change traffic counts on an Evansville Bridge

Sure, the US 41 Corridor already handles some of the Chicago-Nashville traffic, but if it were closer to Freeway standard, especially thru Indiana, I bet it would get more of that traffic (possibly a way down the road I-41 designation?). Bypassing Terre Haute and a better connection to the Chicago Freeway network at the Northern end would help
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on July 02, 2018, 11:05:12 AM
I wonder if a new Terre Haute Northeastern Bypass (to tie into the new IN 641 Bypass leg) or a Western Terre Haute Byoass, in addition to a US 41 to IL 394 connector and/or the Illiana would change traffic conts on an Evansville Bridge

Sure, the US 41 Corridor already handles some of the Chicago-Nashville traffic, but if it were closer to Freeway standard, especially thru Indiana, I bet it would get more of that traffic (possibly a way down the road I-41 designation?). Bypassing Terre Haute and a better connection to the Chicago Freeway network at the Northern end would help

Would that and the new I-69 bridge being open shave 20-30 minutes off travel time from Chicago to Nashville on the US-41/SR 63/I-69/I-24 route?  It's obviously a shorter route but right now 65 is faster.

I guess you could argue that some of money going towards making I-65 3 lanes could/should go to upgrading that route and diverting some semi traffic to go through Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 02, 2018, 12:14:27 PM
One other option is I-57 to I-24.  There is quite a lot of traffic using that option too.  The advantage to that route is that you don't have potential tie ups in Indianapolis or Louisville.  US 41 would alleviate both routes somewhat.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 02, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
I wonder if a new Terre Haute Northeastern Bypass (to tie into the new IN 641 Bypass leg) or a Western Terre Haute Byoass, in addition to a US 41 to IL 394 connector and/or the Illiana would change traffic conts on an Evansville Bridge

Sure, the US 41 Corridor already handles some of the Chicago-Nashville traffic, but if it were closer to Freeway standard, especially thru Indiana, I bet it would get more of that traffic (possibly a way down the road I-41 designation?). Bypassing Terre Haute and a better connection to the Chicago Freeway network at the Northern end would help

Would that and the new I-69 bridge being open shave 20-30 minutes off travel time from Chicago to Nashville on the US-41/SR 63/I-69/I-24 route?  It's obviously a shorter route but right now 65 is faster.

I guess you could argue that some of money going towards making I-65 3 lanes could/should go to upgrading that route and diverting some semi traffic to go through Evansville.

I drove from Chicago to Evansville yesterday. If you get IL-394 over to 41 somewhere south of St. John, this route would be a viable route to Nashville. Considering how long IN-641 took, I wouldn't expect anything around Terre Haute to get done in our lifetimes. With that said, even with Terre Haute, I think the shorter distance, and potential traffic in Indy and Louisville would balance things out.

The first step is what INDOT should have done 40 years ago, switch US 41 and SR 63. It is absolutely ridiculous that this has never been done, and a source of constant confusion.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on July 02, 2018, 09:51:43 PM
At a minimum, IN 63 should be renumbered as an (even)41. But probably should just simply be US 41, agreed

How about KY dump the whole I-169 designation for the Pennyrile Pkwy south of the Western KY Pkwy, in exchange for I-41. Be bold, KY!

Tho I don’t think that IN would really care that much, and still wouldn’t be in a big hurry to at least make improvements to the US 41 corridor, if not an eventual Freeway/Interstate designation

I was more just thinking that if the Evansville/Henderson I-69 bridge were to be tolled, its traffic counts should go up, if the US 41 corridor can be a competitive N-S route for Chicago<->Nashville traffic, in addition to the Memphis<->Indy route
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 03, 2018, 09:40:10 AM

How about KY dump the whole I-169 designation for the Pennyrile Pkwy south of the Western KY Pkwy, in exchange for I-41. Be bold, KY!

No. Just no. This is even shorter than the existing I-41, which also should be a 3di.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 04, 2018, 11:50:03 AM

How about KY dump the whole I-169 designation for the Pennyrile Pkwy south of the Western KY Pkwy, in exchange for I-41. Be bold, KY!

No. Just no. This is even shorter than the existing I-41, which also should be a 3di.

Agreed. If this ever got off the ground, I would favor a I-61 or 63 designation from Nashville to Chicago. IMO, this should have been I-65, and stretched from Green Bay to Mobile. Even if you go with the actual Louisville routing, I never understood why I-65 terminated in Gary, instead of continuing as the north-south route from Chicago to Green Bay.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 04, 2018, 05:47:41 PM

How about KY dump the whole I-169 designation for the Pennyrile Pkwy south of the Western KY Pkwy, in exchange for I-41. Be bold, KY!

No. Just no. This is even shorter than the existing I-41, which also should be a 3di.

Agreed. If this ever got off the ground, I would favor a I-61 or 63 designation from Nashville to Chicago. IMO, this should have been I-65, and stretched from Green Bay to Mobile. Even if you go with the actual Louisville routing, I never understood why I-65 terminated in Gary, instead of continuing as the north-south route from Chicago to Green Bay.

Wisconsin had always preferred N-S Interstate designations in the 50's range; when the 1968 batch of additions were added, the original AASHO plan was to (a) truncate I-94 at Milwaukee (b) extend I-57 up previous I-94 and on over what's now I-43 to Green Bay, and (c) to renumber I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron (via Detroit) as I-92; that designation would also have replaced I-294 around Chicago (can't have 294 w/o 94!).  Of course Chicago interests, particularly Mayor Daley, raised holy hell about the plan to renumber longstanding Chicago arteries, so the present situation was instituted.  WIDOT chose I-43 because it was easier to renumber old WI 43 because it was a short route south of Milwaukee (47 or 49, more logical designations back in '68-69, would have required renumbering long and well-established state routes -- and the selection was in WIDOT's hands -- thus "43").  Since the Green Bay extension wasn't in the works during the initial route finalization in the late '50's, the thought of extending I-65 around the west side of Lake Michigan wasn't even in the back of anyone's mind.   Of course decades later when the Interstate conversion of US 41 in WI was being planned, the original choice for designation was an extension of I-55 -- but IL put the kibosh on that in short order.  Chicago and environs have for the longest time displayed a preference for retaining their route numbers "as is" even in the face of regional convolution -- and they've also displayed the political clout to get their way.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mrsman on July 05, 2018, 03:19:58 PM

How about KY dump the whole I-169 designation for the Pennyrile Pkwy south of the Western KY Pkwy, in exchange for I-41. Be bold, KY!

No. Just no. This is even shorter than the existing I-41, which also should be a 3di.

Agreed. If this ever got off the ground, I would favor a I-61 or 63 designation from Nashville to Chicago. IMO, this should have been I-65, and stretched from Green Bay to Mobile. Even if you go with the actual Louisville routing, I never understood why I-65 terminated in Gary, instead of continuing as the north-south route from Chicago to Green Bay.

Wisconsin had always preferred N-S Interstate designations in the 50's range; when the 1968 batch of additions were added, the original AASHO plan was to (a) truncate I-94 at Milwaukee (b) extend I-57 up previous I-94 and on over what's now I-43 to Green Bay, and (c) to renumber I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron (via Detroit) as I-92; that designation would also have replaced I-294 around Chicago (can't have 294 w/o 94!).  Of course Chicago interests, particularly Mayor Daley, raised holy hell about the plan to renumber longstanding Chicago arteries, so the present situation was instituted.  WIDOT chose I-43 because it was easier to renumber old WI 43 because it was a short route south of Milwaukee (47 or 49, more logical designations back in '68-69, would have required renumbering long and well-established state routes -- and the selection was in WIDOT's hands -- thus "43").  Since the Green Bay extension wasn't in the works during the initial route finalization in the late '50's, the thought of extending I-65 around the west side of Lake Michigan wasn't even in the back of anyone's mind.   Of course decades later when the Interstate conversion of US 41 in WI was being planned, the original choice for designation was an extension of I-55 -- but IL put the kibosh on that in short order.  Chicago and environs have for the longest time displayed a preference for retaining their route numbers "as is" even in the face of regional convolution -- and they've also displayed the political clout to get their way.

Totally agreed with regard to your comments on Chicago.  IMO, this position harms Chicago too as it makes driving around Chicago more difficult.  If you know that you want to get to the north suburbs, you should take a northbound freeway, right?  But in Chicago that means that you take the westbound I-94.  Ridiculous.

To have a N-S interstate from Green Bay and Milwaukee, continuting into Metro Chicago along the Edens Expy, multiplexing with I-90 in the loop and then becoming either I-55 or I-57 or I-65 for trips further south would be ideal.  Heck, it would be fine if I-55 or 57 or 65 were made as an additional routing along with I-94 for that stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on July 10, 2018, 01:03:55 PM
I wonder if a new Terre Haute Northeastern Bypass (to tie into the new IN 641 Bypass leg) or a Western Terre Haute Byoass, in addition to a US 41 to IL 394 connector and/or the Illiana would change traffic conts on an Evansville Bridge

Sure, the US 41 Corridor already handles some of the Chicago-Nashville traffic, but if it were closer to Freeway standard, especially thru Indiana, I bet it would get more of that traffic (possibly a way down the road I-41 designation?). Bypassing Terre Haute and a better connection to the Chicago Freeway network at the Northern end would help

Would that and the new I-69 bridge being open shave 20-30 minutes off travel time from Chicago to Nashville on the US-41/SR 63/I-69/I-24 route?  It's obviously a shorter route but right now 65 is faster.

I guess you could argue that some of money going towards making I-65 3 lanes could/should go to upgrading that route and diverting some semi traffic to go through Evansville.

I drove from Chicago to Evansville yesterday. If you get IL-394 over to 41 somewhere south of St. John, this route would be a viable route to Nashville. Considering how long IN-641 took, I wouldn't expect anything around Terre Haute to get done in our lifetimes. With that said, even with Terre Haute, I think the shorter distance, and potential traffic in Indy and Louisville would balance things out.

The first step is what INDOT should have done 40 years ago, switch US 41 and SR 63. It is absolutely ridiculous that this has never been done, and a source of constant confusion.

I have driven a similar route from Evansville to the Western Chicago burbs. It wasn't for toll avoidance on 294 and 88.  It was about travel times and traffic loads.

I would get off US41 north of Kentland and jog west into Illinois. Take I-57 north to Peotone Road and then take that to I-55 around Wilmington. Basically a route the Illiana Expressway would take.

It worked for many years but two things began to kill it. Congestion through Terre Haute started to get bad in the early 1990's and Wilmington started developing south in Will County around 2001.

Senseless traffic lights started appearing and travel times began to grow again.  I finally gave it up around 2010.

I don't travel the Indy/Memphis route. I have driven IN-37 from Indy to Evansville many times and when I-69 is done I anticipate using it for that.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2018, 04:18:57 PM
Totally agreed with regard to your comments on Chicago.  IMO, this position harms Chicago too as it makes driving around Chicago more difficult.  If you know that you want to get to the north suburbs, you should take a northbound freeway, right?  But in Chicago that means that you take the westbound I-94.  Ridiculous.

To have a N-S interstate from Green Bay and Milwaukee, continuting into Metro Chicago along the Edens Expy, multiplexing with I-90 in the loop and then becoming either I-55 or I-57 or I-65 for trips further south would be ideal.  Heck, it would be fine if I-55 or 57 or 65 were made as an additional routing along with I-94 for that stretch.

In retrospect, it seems that maintaining I-94 as a second major E-W route through Chicagoland has always been a local priority -- something of a matter of local pride and seeming prestige to have multiple servers like that!  Besides, I-94 directly connects to Chicago's nearest rivals in regional civic pride/sports/economic activity:  Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Detroit -- (with I-41/43, pretty much all of NFC North!).  It seems to be all about psychological familiarity and the maintenance of such -- to Chicago, I-94 is the way to get to other areas with similar circumstances but often (at least in the case of Detroit) not coping as well, giving Chicago(land) the ability to either gloat a bit or think "there but for the grace of God..........".  It's been around for about 60 years now; for Chicago, I-94's iconic -- it even gets a shout-out in the film "Doctor Detroit".  Any notion to alter/truncate it, despite its convoluted routing, will likely be viewed as an affront or insult to many locals in and around the city. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on July 11, 2018, 08:26:36 AM
Totally agreed with regard to your comments on Chicago.  IMO, this position harms Chicago too as it makes driving around Chicago more difficult.  If you know that you want to get to the north suburbs, you should take a northbound freeway, right?  But in Chicago that means that you take the westbound I-94.  Ridiculous.

To have a N-S interstate from Green Bay and Milwaukee, continuting into Metro Chicago along the Edens Expy, multiplexing with I-90 in the loop and then becoming either I-55 or I-57 or I-65 for trips further south would be ideal.  Heck, it would be fine if I-55 or 57 or 65 were made as an additional routing along with I-94 for that stretch.

In retrospect, it seems that maintaining I-94 as a second major E-W route through Chicagoland has always been a local priority -- something of a matter of local pride and seeming prestige to have multiple servers like that!  Besides, I-94 directly connects to Chicago's nearest rivals in regional civic pride/sports/economic activity:  Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Detroit -- (with I-41/43, pretty much all of NFC North!).  It seems to be all about psychological familiarity and the maintenance of such -- to Chicago, I-94 is the way to get to other areas with similar circumstances but often (at least in the case of Detroit) not coping as well, giving Chicago(land) the ability to either gloat a bit or think "there but for the grace of God..........".  It's been around for about 60 years now; for Chicago, I-94's iconic -- it even gets a shout-out in the film "Doctor Detroit".  Any notion to alter/truncate it, despite its convoluted routing, will likely be viewed as an affront or insult to many locals in and around the city.

I seriously doubt it is a pride issue.

The renumbering of the Ike from 90 to 290 went off with none of the issues described by anyone above. No mayoral noise, no public outcry,

I-94 has been and was always planned as the northernmost arterial in the US originally to connect southern Canada via Detroit ( now Sarnia) to points west of the Great Lakes.

Since it was never planned as a transcon but as a collection of various routes (Detroit-Chicago) (Chicago-Twin Cities) the numbering scheme was for clarity over distance, not due to political interference.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on July 11, 2018, 09:52:00 AM
Totally agreed with regard to your comments on Chicago.  IMO, this position harms Chicago too as it makes driving around Chicago more difficult.  If you know that you want to get to the north suburbs, you should take a northbound freeway, right?  But in Chicago that means that you take the westbound I-94.  Ridiculous.

To have a N-S interstate from Green Bay and Milwaukee, continuting into Metro Chicago along the Edens Expy, multiplexing with I-90 in the loop and then becoming either I-55 or I-57 or I-65 for trips further south would be ideal.  Heck, it would be fine if I-55 or 57 or 65 were made as an additional routing along with I-94 for that stretch.

In retrospect, it seems that maintaining I-94 as a second major E-W route through Chicagoland has always been a local priority -- something of a matter of local pride and seeming prestige to have multiple servers like that!  Besides, I-94 directly connects to Chicago's nearest rivals in regional civic pride/sports/economic activity:  Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Detroit -- (with I-41/43, pretty much all of NFC North!).  It seems to be all about psychological familiarity and the maintenance of such -- to Chicago, I-94 is the way to get to other areas with similar circumstances but often (at least in the case of Detroit) not coping as well, giving Chicago(land) the ability to either gloat a bit or think "there but for the grace of God..........".  It's been around for about 60 years now; for Chicago, I-94's iconic -- it even gets a shout-out in the film "Doctor Detroit".  Any notion to alter/truncate it, despite its convoluted routing, will likely be viewed as an affront or insult to many locals in and around the city.

I seriously doubt it is a pride issue.

The renumbering of the Ike from 90 to 290 went off with none of the issues described by anyone above. No mayoral noise, no public outcry,

I-94 has been and was always planned as the northernmost arterial in the US originally to connect southern Canada via Detroit ( now Sarnia) to points west of the Great Lakes.

Since it was never planned as a transcon but as a collection of various routes (Detroit-Chicago) (Chicago-Twin Cities) the numbering scheme was for clarity over distance, not due to political interference.

Interestingly (and this is a bit of a tangent), whenever Big Rig Steve has had a load that is to pass through both Billings, MT and Tomah, WI, he has always used I-94 instead of I-90 between them - it's the shorter and faster route.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on July 11, 2018, 10:22:57 AM
Totally agreed with regard to your comments on Chicago.  IMO, this position harms Chicago too as it makes driving around Chicago more difficult.  If you know that you want to get to the north suburbs, you should take a northbound freeway, right?  But in Chicago that means that you take the westbound I-94.  Ridiculous.

To have a N-S interstate from Green Bay and Milwaukee, continuting into Metro Chicago along the Edens Expy, multiplexing with I-90 in the loop and then becoming either I-55 or I-57 or I-65 for trips further south would be ideal.  Heck, it would be fine if I-55 or 57 or 65 were made as an additional routing along with I-94 for that stretch.

In retrospect, it seems that maintaining I-94 as a second major E-W route through Chicagoland has always been a local priority -- something of a matter of local pride and seeming prestige to have multiple servers like that!  Besides, I-94 directly connects to Chicago's nearest rivals in regional civic pride/sports/economic activity:  Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Detroit -- (with I-41/43, pretty much all of NFC North!).  It seems to be all about psychological familiarity and the maintenance of such -- to Chicago, I-94 is the way to get to other areas with similar circumstances but often (at least in the case of Detroit) not coping as well, giving Chicago(land) the ability to either gloat a bit or think "there but for the grace of God..........".  It's been around for about 60 years now; for Chicago, I-94's iconic -- it even gets a shout-out in the film "Doctor Detroit".  Any notion to alter/truncate it, despite its convoluted routing, will likely be viewed as an affront or insult to many locals in and around the city.

I seriously doubt it is a pride issue.

The renumbering of the Ike from 90 to 290 went off with none of the issues described by anyone above. No mayoral noise, no public outcry,

I-94 has been and was always planned as the northernmost arterial in the US originally to connect southern Canada via Detroit ( now Sarnia) to points west of the Great Lakes.

Since it was never planned as a transcon but as a collection of various routes (Detroit-Chicago) (Chicago-Twin Cities) the numbering scheme was for clarity over distance, not due to political interference.

Interestingly (and this is a bit of a tangent), whenever Big Rig Steve has had a load that is to pass through both Billings, MT and Tomah, WI, he has always used I-94 instead of I-90 between them - it's the shorter and faster route.

Mike
Although not the highest-numbered east-west route (I-96 between Muskegon and Detroit is the winner here), I-94 does take the northernmost route through a good chunk of the country. I'm glad that the easternmost portion was numbered to that instead of I-92, because the road as a whole does a very good job of connecting the Great Lakes' largest cities with one continuous route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on July 18, 2018, 12:03:05 AM
I-69 bridge Central Alternative tweaked to improve U.S. 41 access

https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/2018/06/18/69-bridge-route-alternatives-tweaked/711446002/ (https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/2018/06/18/69-bridge-route-alternatives-tweaked/711446002/)

(https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4521018/pages/20180618-MATT-Updated-Alternatives-Handout-FINAL-p1-normal.gif)

EVANSVILLE, Ind. – The Interstate 69 bridge route preferred by most elected officials in Evansville and Henderson has been tweaked to address some community concerns, the I-69 Ohio River Crossing Group announced on Monday.

Businesses along the much-traveled U.S. 41 commercial strip in Henderson have often said that Central Alternative 1 – one of three routes still being considered – would cause them a substantial loss in traffic.

Central Alternative 1 route swerves around Henderson to the east, while the other two remaining route alternatives follow the existing U.S. 41 path.

The bridge project team visited nearly 100 businesses along U.S. 41 in Henderson, and many said they feared lost customers.

The route modification is slight, but bridge project officials believe it will make a positive difference for those businesses. 

"Previously, if you were coming up existing U.S. 41 or I-69 from the south, you followed the alignment to an interchange and you had to basically get off the interstate and come back (to U.S. 41) on a roadway that tied back in. It was essentially a mile in distance," said Dan Prevost, the I-69 bridge project's lead environmental.

"What this changed alignment does is provide a direct connection, straight to U.S. 41, coming northbound. You no longer have to do this circuitous route to get to these businesses," Prevost said.

Central Alternative 1 is the least costly of the three routes being considered for I-69 across the Ohio River, at nearly $1.5 billion. It would involve only four residence relocations.

Henderson County Judge-Executive Brad Schneider, a supporter of Central Alternative 1, endorsed the route modification.

"We very much appreciate the team listening to input and making a change based on that input," Schneider said "The initial route did not seem very conducive to traffic reaching the strip, either northbound or southbound. This makes it much easier for traffic to exit onto the U.S. 41 corridor, and utilize those businesses, if in fact Central Alternative 1 is chosen."

The project team on Monday said the other two routes – West Alternative 1 and West Alternative 2 – have undergone minor changes. A retaining wall has been added on both West routes to avoid impact to a small cemetery within the Merrill Place development.

On the West Alternative 2 route, the intersection of Elm Street and Watson Lane in Henderson has been tweaked to improve safety and access.

West Alternative 1 is projected to cost $1.8 billion, and the West Alternative 2 estimate is $1.68 billion. West Alternative 1 would result in 242 residence relocations and 27 business relocations. West Alternative 2 would requiring relocating 96 homes and 64 businesses.

I-69 BridgeLink, a coalition of government officials and business leaders in Evansville and Henderson, has endorsed Central Alternative 1, with hope that at least one of the existing U.S. 41 twin bridges will remain in use, allowing travelers two points to cross the river.

A preferred alternative is to be identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement published in the fall. After that statement is released, there will be public hearings in Evansville and Henderson.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision are expected by fall 2019. The date of construction depends on funding availability.
About those tolls ...

Bridge project officials say I-69 will be tolled, no matter what alternative is selected, and tolling U.S. 41 might be necessary if West Alternative 1 or Central Alternative 1 is selected.

A bi-state body will be created to establish toll policy.

The project team said it is evaluating tolling scenarios, including how tolls might impact traffic, and estimating what revenue they would bring. Any tolling mechanism would be electronic, with no stopping or slowing of traffic.

In Louisville, where a new Ohio River crossing to Indiana recently opened, toll rates range from $2 to $12 per crossing. Passenger vehicles with a prepaid account are $2, and a passenger vehicle without a prepaid account is $4. The higher rates are for commercial traffic.

The days of building large bridge projects without tolls in the United States are over, according to I-69 project officials.

"The funding environment has changed somewhat over the last 20 years," Prevost said. "It used to be that the federal government funded the majority of projects like this at a very substantial percentage, 50 percent or more. And that primarily came from the federal gas tax. But that gas tax hasn't been raised in more than 25 years. As a result, what you have is the effect of inflation on those gas tax revenues.

"At the same time, the costs of construction are outpacing the more broad inflation rates. ... You've got these two factors working against you."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 18, 2018, 09:21:55 PM
If the I-69 bridge tolls emulate those upstream in Louisville, they'll still be a bargain compared with what we face here in the Bay Area.  Right now, the Caltrans-owned bridges -- for passenger vehicles -- are flat-rated at $5, with an HOV price of $2.50; that is for both cash and FasTrak.  The exception is the Bay Bridge at $6 for peak hours and $4 for off-hours; also flat-rated at $5 on weekends (HOV being half those figures).  But there are plans to raise those rates to $8, with the Bay Bridge topping out at $9.  Commercial rates for all bridges start at $15 and go up to $35 for a single crossing. 

But getting back to the I-69/US 41 situation -- if it is decided to toll both the old and new crossings, it is likely that some amelioration or compensation would have to be given to local drivers (possibly in the form of free or drastically reduced-rate transponders) for the older span.  Otherwise there would likely be significant political "blowback" that could conceivably jeopardize the timely development of the project.  Given the pressure (one of the last major chokepoints on the Indy-Memphis route) to expedite the completion of the corridor,  it would be anticipated that negotiations for such an arrangement would occur prior to contract letting. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 18, 2018, 11:12:56 PM
In the truck I prefer taking US41 down to Evansville and going through nashville on 24 if i am heading down to the south from Chicago, avoids traffic in Louisville and Indianapolis, and it generally can be faster as long as you don't get caught by a ton of traffic lights.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CtrlAltDel on July 19, 2018, 02:45:25 AM
If the I-69 bridge tolls emulate those upstream in Louisville, they'll still be a bargain compared with what we face here in the Bay Area.  Right now, the Caltrans-owned bridges -- for passenger vehicles -- are flat-rated at $5, with an HOV price of $2.50; that is for both cash and FasTrak.  The exception is the Bay Bridge at $6 for peak hours and $4 for off-hours; also flat-rated at $5 on weekends (HOV being half those figures).

Aren't the Bay area tolls collected only one way, though? That effectively halves the rates you mention.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 19, 2018, 05:30:18 AM
Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 19, 2018, 10:36:14 AM
I'd say the tolls on the new I-69 bridge would be set at or below the rates for Louisville, because they aren't building two discrete spans and there won't be a tunnel under a historic property, which affected the cost for the Louisville project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on July 19, 2018, 03:45:18 PM
Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.


The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 19, 2018, 03:53:32 PM
Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.


The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

IIRC, an inspection of the US 41 bridges would be taking place; the one deemed in better condition would be retained for two-way vehicular use, while the second would be taken out of service.  It hasn't been indicated if the unused bridge would be demolished -- and whether any demolition would be partial (the main span over the navigable channel would be the most likely to go), with the remainder used as a local pier (fishing, just sitting around, etc.) from one or both directions, with local assumption of maintenance.  Wouldn't be surprised if that decision is deferred until the final overall configuration is determined; complicating such matters would be the fact that the bridges are situated fully in the state of Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 20, 2018, 08:48:05 AM
Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.


The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

IIRC, an inspection of the US 41 bridges would be taking place; the one deemed in better condition would be retained for two-way vehicular use, while the second would be taken out of service.  It hasn't been indicated if the unused bridge would be demolished -- and whether any demolition would be partial (the main span over the navigable channel would be the most likely to go), with the remainder used as a local pier (fishing, just sitting around, etc.) from one or both directions, with local assumption of maintenance.  Wouldn't be surprised if that decision is deferred until the final overall configuration is determined; complicating such matters would be the fact that the bridges are situated fully in the state of Kentucky.
I would expect the older span would be the one that is removed from traffic (it will be getting closer and closer to 100 years by the time the new bridge is built).  I would also expect that if it is taken down, it will be fully removed.  It is way too high to be used by fishermen, etc.  They periodically have people threatening to jump from it now.  It would have more work to do if it was made for a pedestrian/bike bridge (such as a cage around the roadway).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on July 20, 2018, 10:06:59 AM
Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.


The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

IIRC, an inspection of the US 41 bridges would be taking place; the one deemed in better condition would be retained for two-way vehicular use, while the second would be taken out of service.  It hasn't been indicated if the unused bridge would be demolished -- and whether any demolition would be partial (the main span over the navigable channel would be the most likely to go), with the remainder used as a local pier (fishing, just sitting around, etc.) from one or both directions, with local assumption of maintenance.  Wouldn't be surprised if that decision is deferred until the final overall configuration is determined; complicating such matters would be the fact that the bridges are situated fully in the state of Kentucky.
I would expect the older span would be the one that is removed from traffic (it will be getting closer and closer to 100 years by the time the new bridge is built).  I would also expect that if it is taken down, it will be fully removed.  It is way too high to be used by fishermen, etc.  They periodically have people threatening to jump from it now.  It would have more work to do if it was made for a pedestrian/bike bridge (such as a cage around the roadway).

Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on July 20, 2018, 11:43:52 AM
I wouldn't take it out of service immediately upon opening the new bridge. I'd keep it in use until the next major upkeep project came due (painting, redecking, etc.) and then close it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on July 20, 2018, 10:02:57 PM
Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on July 20, 2018, 11:29:24 PM
Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?
US 41 isn't a freeway, so yes, bikes are allowed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 21, 2018, 12:16:40 PM
Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?
US 41 isn't a freeway, so yes, bikes are allowed.

They may be allowed, but I would highly advise against it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 21, 2018, 05:02:53 PM
Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?
US 41 isn't a freeway, so yes, bikes are allowed.

They may be allowed, but I would highly advise against it.
There is no walkway on either of the bridges, and with the size of the bridge and the heavy traffic over it, you would be out of your mind to attempt it.  When they had races that used the bridge, they would close it off to traffic for a short period of time (one side).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on July 22, 2018, 09:35:09 AM
the old 41 bridge will be a pedestrian bridge, i thought that was what was always going to happen
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on July 23, 2018, 12:45:31 AM
the old 41 bridge will be a pedestrian bridge, i thought that was what was always going to happen

This is the first I've heard of that; all information to date has indicated that with 2 of the 3 I-69 alternatives still under consideration, a single US 41 bridge will be retained for two-way vehicular traffic (the 3rd option functionally replaces both US 41 bridges with a single 6-lane I-69 structure).  While there may be talk in some quarters about converting any remaining bridge to a pedestrian/bicycle-only facility, no formal plans to do so are forthcoming.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on July 23, 2018, 04:19:24 PM
Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: 2trailertrucker on July 24, 2018, 07:47:29 PM
Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.
The East End Bridge in Louisville ( although it is not an interstate..yet) has a pedestrian crossing on the southbound side of the bridge. I went by there and there where quite a few people walking and biking it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on July 25, 2018, 10:08:58 AM
Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.
The East End Bridge in Louisville ( although it is not an interstate..yet) has a pedestrian crossing on the southbound side of the bridge. I went by there and there where quite a few people walking and biking it.

There is a pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the EB side of the I-94 Saint Croix River bridge on the Minnesota-Wisconsin state line (Hudson, WI), too.

Pedestrians and bicycles are also allowed on the main roadways of the I-79 Ohio River bridge near Pittsburgh, PA.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on August 10, 2018, 04:05:55 PM
http://www.14news.com/story/38854689/tolling-will-happen-steel-tariffs-will-hurt-in-funding-i-69-orx

Tolling will happen and apparently they may also need tolls on the remaining US-41 bridge to pay for the new bridge (West Alternative 2 replaces the US-41 bridge completely with an I-69 bridge).

There's construction inflation and if the steel tariffs continue, that would also add to the price.

Quote from: WFIE
INDIANA AND KENTUCKY (WFIE) -
We're learning there will be tolling on the new I-69 Bridge. The Ohio River Crossing team's lead engineer consultant, Brian Aldridge, gave the update at a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting Thursday.

During Aldridge's presentation, it was discussed that two of the three options in "West Alternative 1" and "Central Alternative 1" may require additional tolling revenue from Highway 41.

Project officials say tolling alone wouldn't be enough to pay for the project. It's going to take multiple funding sources including federal and money from both states.

Aldridge also mentioned they haven't determined toll rates yet, but pinpointed Louisville's new east end bridge, using the RiverLink model as a close example of what modern tolling here could look like.

"We don't have those details yet, and we're not going to have those details until such time that a bi-state authority establishes and sets a business plan, and the actual tolling policies that we use for the project," Aldridge said.

Republican Vanderburgh County Commissioner Bruce Ungethiem questioned Aldridge at the podium, asking him if project officials have considered tolling other regional bridges to help with funding.

"Does anybody looking at this, understand that that's appropriate," Ungethiem continued, "that certain bridges will be tolled, and certain bridges won't be tolled?"

Aldridge answered, "again, in terms of this project, we're just trying to find the best way to pay for this project."

Ungetheim then said, "I don't think that will be fair to everybody."

Aldridge noted the estimated costs of all three alternate options, saying construction inflation is added on and increasing annually at least by 4%.

So, over the next 35 years with maintenance costs included and inflation, the West Alt. 1 route will total $1.8 billion; West Alt. 2 $1.6 billion; Central Alt 1 $1.4 billion.

Now, you have tariffs on steel to consider. As steel prices rise 10%, that would tack on a fat $150 million to a $1.5 billion price tag, for example.

"Steel is only one component of project costs," said Project Spokesperson, Mindy Peterson. An increase in prices wouldn’t add that percentage to the bottom line. It’s important to note that we are still years away from construction, and it’s early to speculate on the cost of materials.  The Project Team does monitor cost trends — whether talking about steel, fuel, cement, etc," Peterson clarified.

"There are ten or 11 bridges that go across the Ohio River between Indiana and Kentucky," Ungethiem said, "and if we're going to toll one of the bridges, we should take a look at all of the bridges and see if we should toll every other bridge, or certain bridges in each section, so everybody shares in the cost of putting a bridge between Indiana and Kentucky, regardless of where it's at."

The I-69 ORX project is a long process, so what's next?

Project officials say sometime this Fall we can expect the Bi-State Authority to narrow the three crossing options down to one. After that, there are even more public hearings to follow for your input.

I don't think Ungethiem will be able to get support for tolling nearly all the bridges between Indiana & Kentucky to pay for the new bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on August 10, 2018, 05:42:59 PM
Politicians always want to slap on tolls, which THEY can easily afford to pay. They exaggerate potential costs, and spread scare stories about inflation & the effects of tariffs (which hopefully will  be long gone by the time construction actually begins on the I-69 ORX project). But what they don't tell you is that private toll system operating companies will get rich from these tolling schemes, and that they are part of the legalized bribery scheme facilitated by the insane Citizens United decision. Privatization through these electronic tolling scams is nothing more than piratization (private profit at public expense). OF COURSE they want to impose tolls on bridges other than the new ones being built, to make it impossible for the driving public to avoid tolls. And when tolls are avoided, that hurts the profit margin of these private toll operators - which in turn likely lessens the amount of their future campaign contributions to the very pols who make the decisions about imposing such tolls the first place.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 11, 2018, 12:00:26 AM
By the time construction starts on the bridge, domestic steel production should be on the increase to offset the tariff-laden imported steel -- which is the purpose of the tariffs in the first place. And a large amount of steel would only be needed if a truss bridge is built. A "plain" bridge with prestressed concrete beams would require a lot less steel than a truss bridge, or a bridge with steel beams.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2018, 12:08:27 AM
*sigh*

U.S. steel is so uncompetitive that even with the 25% tariffs, imports may still be considered cheaper.

https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2018/07/26/have-domestic-steel-prices-peaked/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 11, 2018, 10:02:01 AM
By the time construction starts on the bridge, domestic steel production should be on the increase to offset the tariff-laden imported steel -- which is the purpose of the tariffs in the first place. And a large amount of steel would only be needed if a truss bridge is built. A "plain" bridge with prestressed concrete beams would require a lot less steel than a truss bridge, or a bridge with steel beams.

Still a decent amount of reinforcing steel in the piers no matter the bridge type, also in the foundations, particularly if they use H-piles or metal shells/pipe piles.

Based on the span length of the existing structures, I would guess the new bridge would be either an arch or cable-stayed design.  The former could need a lot of steel for the arch structure, the latter would need a decent amount for the cables and the reinforcement in the towers.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on August 11, 2018, 12:50:12 PM
Back to the pedestrian use of the older 41 span. I don't see enough of a potential use to justify this. Unlike Louisville or Cincinnati, where you have urban areas immediately on the banks opposite of each other, US 41 traverses several miles of uninhabitable river bottoms between Evansville and Henderson. You can take a leisurely stroll between Jeffersonville and Louisville, this would take planned hike. Even if you provided parking at Ellis Park, you would still have to go a considerable distance on the KY side to provide parking, somewhere near Audubon Park. With the remoteness and light use, I think you would run into the same problems St. Louis has with the Chain of Rocks Bridge...cars being broken into, and actual robberies on the bridge.

With lighter use, I think both spans can continue to serve vehicular traffic.

Regarding Bruce Ugethiem, he is completely out of his mind if he thinks Owensboro will allow tolling on the Blue Bridge, or Brookport-Paducah will go with it on the steel-bottomed US 45 span.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 11, 2018, 03:25:17 PM
By the time construction starts on the bridge, domestic steel production should be on the increase to offset the tariff-laden imported steel -- which is the purpose of the tariffs in the first place. And a large amount of steel would only be needed if a truss bridge is built. A "plain" bridge with prestressed concrete beams would require a lot less steel than a truss bridge, or a bridge with steel beams.

Still a decent amount of reinforcing steel in the piers no matter the bridge type, also in the foundations, particularly if they use H-piles or metal shells/pipe piles.

Based on the span length of the existing structures, I would guess the new bridge would be either an arch or cable-stayed design.  The former could need a lot of steel for the arch structure, the latter would need a decent amount for the cables and the reinforcement in the towers.

Which brings up a thought I've always had -- why is the old bridge at St. Louis, the one that now carries I-64 but not I-70 -- so plain? How did they get by with it not being a truss bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on August 12, 2018, 03:31:22 AM
Back to the pedestrian use of the older 41 span. I don't see enough of a potential use to justify this. Unlike Louisville or Cincinnati, where you have urban areas immediately on the banks opposite of each other, US 41 traverses several miles of uninhabitable river bottoms between Evansville and Henderson. You can take a leisurely stroll between Jeffersonville and Louisville, this would take planned hike. Even if you provided parking at Ellis Park, you would still have to go a considerable distance on the KY side to provide parking, somewhere near Audubon Park. With the remoteness and light use, I think you would run into the same problems St. Louis has with the Chain of Rocks Bridge...cars being broken into, and actual robberies on the bridge.

With lighter use, I think both spans can continue to serve vehicular traffic.

Regarding Bruce Ugethiem, he is completely out of his mind if he thinks Owensboro will allow tolling on the Blue Bridge, or Brookport-Paducah will go with it on the steel-bottomed US 45 span.

If that's the best idea Ungethiem can come up with, it's little wonder he lost that primary race for State Rep. Sheesh!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 12, 2018, 12:18:11 PM
Which brings up a thought I've always had -- why is the old bridge at St. Louis, the one that now carries I-64 but not I-70 -- so plain? How did they get by with it not being a truss bridge?

IIRC, partially due to not wanting a truss interfering with views of the Arch (although the MarArthur Bridge just south of the PSB already provides a blockage).

I think the PSB is also getting near the upper limit for girder spans (someone is more than welcome to disprove this).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on August 13, 2018, 10:21:33 PM
Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.

FDOT District 5 got in a lot of trouble in 2016 when on the I-95 (Fuller Warren Bridge upgrade) they tried to state that having pedestrian access on an Interstate signed highway bridge was illegal.  It is not illegal and it is used on many urban interstate signed bridges nationally.  Seems they just didn't want to have to design pedestrian access into the project and got called out on it. So rather than trying, they simply tried to bluff their way against it.  It's under construction now. They are driving new caissons into the St Johns River for them today.  If any DOT tries to tell anyone that federally funded highways can't have pedestrian access included, they are full of nonsense.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 15, 2018, 05:56:25 PM
FDOT District 5 got in a lot of trouble in 2016 when on the I-95 (Fuller Warren Bridge upgrade) they tried to state that having pedestrian access on an Interstate signed highway bridge was illegal.  It is not illegal and it is used on many urban interstate signed bridges nationally.  Seems they just didn't want to have to design pedestrian access into the project and got called out on it. So rather than trying, they simply tried to bluff their way against it.  It's under construction now. They are driving new caissons into the St Johns River for them today.  If any DOT tries to tell anyone that federally funded highways can't have pedestrian access included, they are full of nonsense.

The O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge over the Colorado River canyon on I-11 says hello; it features a very prominent separated pedestrian walkway on its north side -- just don't venture out onto it if you have acrophobia! 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on August 16, 2018, 05:05:30 PM
The O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge over the Colorado River canyon on I-11 says hello; it features a very prominent separated pedestrian walkway on its north side -- just don't venture out onto it if you have acrophobia!
When I walked that structure in 2011, I wonder just how many cell/smart phones have been (and would soon be) accidentally dropped into Black Canyon below by people trying to get photos/videos of Hoover Dam just upstream. Look out below!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on August 17, 2018, 11:21:28 AM
The O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge over the Colorado River canyon on I-11 says hello; it features a very prominent separated pedestrian walkway on its north side -- just don't venture out onto it if you have acrophobia!
When I walked that structure in 2011, I wonder just how many cell/smart phones have been (and would soon be) accidentally dropped into Black Canyon below by people trying to get photos/videos of Hoover Dam just upstream. Look out below!

I have walked across it. Yes, it can give you the willies. And I thought the same thing....how many cell phones ended up dropped in the canyon below. But putting a ped access across the entire bridge was the right thing to do.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: LM117 on August 17, 2018, 01:14:51 PM
The O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge over the Colorado River canyon on I-11 says hello; it features a very prominent separated pedestrian walkway on its north side -- just don't venture out onto it if you have acrophobia!

Welp, that rules me out! :crazy:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on August 21, 2018, 04:25:50 PM
The O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge over the Colorado River canyon on I-11 says hello; it features a very prominent separated pedestrian walkway on its north side -- just don't venture out onto it if you have acrophobia!
When I walked that structure in 2011, I wonder just how many cell/smart phones have been (and would soon be) accidentally dropped into Black Canyon below by people trying to get photos/videos of Hoover Dam just upstream. Look out below!

I have walked across it. Yes, it can give you the willies. And I thought the same thing....how many cell phones ended up dropped in the canyon below. But putting a ped access across the entire bridge was the right thing to do.
Oh, and hats too, as the the winds through the canyon are quite high at times. Had to hang onto mine the day I visited.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on September 20, 2018, 12:20:34 PM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/surveys-and-field-work-continuing-for-i-69-crossing/

DEIS and preferred route expected to be revealed later this fall, then FEIS/ROD next year.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on September 22, 2018, 12:21:39 PM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/surveys-and-field-work-continuing-for-i-69-crossing/

DEIS and preferred route expected to be revealed later this fall, then FEIS/ROD next year.
Looking forward to reading the "justification" if they pick either of the "through Henderson" alternatives over the "Central" one, which seems to be the obvious choice (at least to me).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on December 14, 2018, 12:28:31 PM
Central Route chosen for bridge keeping older, north-bound bridge open for local US 41 traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on December 14, 2018, 12:30:28 PM
I-69 ORX project team announces preferred route for new Evansville-Henderson bridge (https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/2018/12/14/preferred-route-named-69-bridge-connecting-evansville-henderson/2310681002/)

"The I-69 Ohio River Crossing project team announced Friday its preferred route for a new bridge is Central Corridor 1, which is a new-terrain path east of Ellis Park."

"The project team, which consists of representatives of the Indiana Department of Transportation and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, said Central Corridor 1 includes a new four-lane I-69 bridge.

The team recommends the existing northbound U.S. 41 bridge remain open for two-way local traffic.

New interchanges are to be built on the south end of U.S. 41, as well as at U.S. 60 and Veterans Memorial Parkway."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Buck87 on December 14, 2018, 03:02:18 PM
Isn't that the one that will make downtown Evansville to I-69 North traffic go around a gigantic loop ramp where the new freeway from the bridge joins the current one? 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Roadsguy on December 14, 2018, 03:22:57 PM
Isn't that the one that will make downtown Evansville to I-69 North traffic go around a gigantic loop ramp where the new freeway from the bridge joins the current one?

According to the rendering video in the article, yes, and it won't even be a two lane loop...

I-69 on a new-terrain connector is the best choice for sure, but that loop seems just silly.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on December 14, 2018, 03:48:01 PM
Without reading the article, what will be the fate of the existing southbound US 41 bridge, removal, conversion to a pedestrian/bicycle crossing, etc?

I also hope that steps will be taken to better integrate the overall local street network in the south end of this, right now it looks like a total mess.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on December 14, 2018, 04:05:36 PM
Isn't that the one that will make downtown Evansville to I-69 North traffic go around a gigantic loop ramp where the new freeway from the bridge joins the current one?

According to the rendering video in the article, yes, and it won't even be a two lane loop...

I-69 on a new-terrain connector is the best choice for sure, but that loop seems just silly.

I'm surprised they just didn't reverse the trumpet to give the direct movement to the old I-164 route.  Maybe INDOT is calculating that the larger share of NB traffic into central Evansville would rather stay on I-69 (tolled or not) than slog through Henderson and across the river on a single lane of US 41, and they're configuring the interchange accordingly.  In any case, the rendering is certainly preliminary at best; with local feedback, it's likely that if the actual configuration remains, it'll feature more lanes than shown on this video. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on December 14, 2018, 11:28:44 PM
I find the recommendation to keep the northbound bridge quite interesting. It is, after all, 86 years old versus 52 for the southbound. It is also narrower (but not by much). But it also seems to require less-frequent repairs than the southbound ... so maybe that's the reason for that line of thinking???
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Buck87 on December 15, 2018, 10:35:31 AM
Just spitballing here, but if converting the closed bridge to bicycle/pedestrian use is in the plans, the southbound one is better positioned for that, as it allows bike traffic and any future trail connections the possibility of getting between Evansville and Henderson without having to cross over 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on December 15, 2018, 11:43:47 AM
^ One of the graphics with the linked article showed the southbound US 41 bridge being removed.

I find the recommendation to keep the northbound bridge quite interesting. It is, after all, 86 years old versus 52 for the southbound. It is also narrower (but not by much). But it also seems to require less-frequent repairs than the southbound ... so maybe that's the reason for that line of thinking???

Maybe it's for more sinister reasons - keep the old bridge for a few years, then have a sudden critical, very expensive maintenance need cause it to close and force everyone to the new I-69 bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on December 15, 2018, 02:16:34 PM
They're keeping the newer bridge.

Personally, I would keep both bridges. Kentucky's always had full responsibility for them, since the river is not the state line at this location, so the new bridge will not be any more of a funding burden since it will be tolled. If the older bridge is to be closed eventually, at least keep it until the end of its useful life and retire it whenever it might have critical maintenance coming due, such as a repainting (that shouldn't be necessary anytime soon, since it was painted not all that many years ago) or redecking.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on December 15, 2018, 02:24:24 PM
They're keeping the newer bridge.

Personally, I would keep both bridges. Kentucky's always had full responsibility for them, since the river is not the state line at this location, so the new bridge will not be any more of a funding burden since it will be tolled. If the older bridge is to be closed eventually, at least keep it until the end of its useful life and retire it whenever it might have critical maintenance coming due, such as a repainting (that shouldn't be necessary anytime soon, since it was painted not all that many years ago) or redecking.

All the reporting and the documentation they've shown locally list the SB bridge as "removed." I hope they're wrong.  It just got a new driving surface last year.

As far as the paint job goes, it didn't hold up, within 5 years the bridges both looked pretty much like they did before the repaint. District 2 has a fairly lengthy Facebook post about it from 2013, but the gist of that is the paint manufacturer altered the formula without telling anyone. So they'll need a repaint sooner, probably, rather than later.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on December 15, 2018, 06:51:51 PM
Henderson and Evansville officials are on record now stating they will work to keep both 41 spans open. I too can't find any logic to closing the newer and wider one, unless there is this so-called sinister plan to eventually close them.

It is simply illogical to downsize traffic arteries like this. There was another traffic tie up today, causing delays of over an hour to get across the bridge.

It also makes little sense as they are currently spending a large chunk of change replacing bridges on both sides over backwater just across the Indiana side. If you are going to reduce this down to two lanes over the river, you might as well do it before these bridges and save this cost.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on December 17, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
Even though the main report states the southbound bridge should be removed, "Appendix O-1 US 41 Bridges Engineering and Evaluation Report" states the northbound should be removed.  Maybe it was a typo for the Central Alternative.  The southbound bridge made since in West Alternative 1 as that is nearer to where the proposed bridge would be located.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/59_Appendix_O-1_US_41_Bridges_Engineering_and_Evaluation_Report.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 18, 2018, 08:20:43 AM
they gave louisville 3 bridges, why can't they give 3 to this metro area?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on December 18, 2018, 09:50:37 AM
I like that they chose the Central Alternative for I-69, but I'd hate to see US 41 lose a bridge. I hope they preserve the one that's closed to vehicles for pedestrian use.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on December 18, 2018, 10:02:34 AM
they gave louisville 3 bridges, why can't they give 3 to this metro area?

Because Henderson is a very small city in comparison to Louisville's metropolitan area. And I-65's traffic counts and the percentage of trucks that use that route justified the bridges to planners.

And as much as I supported the East End Bridge (I-265), I found that rebuilding the downtown interchange and adding a second interchange was premature and needed to wait until traffic settled out. And my projections were right (https://www.urbanophile.com/2018/11/26/louisville-bridges-project-is-the-biggest-transportation-boondoggle-of-the-21st-century/). The twin I-65 bridges, with 12 lanes between them, are -very- far below projections, even during rush hour. Traffic simply shifted to the free I-64 and US 31 bridges. The East End Bridge (I-265) is operating near projections.

Maintaining three bridges for a small city (Henderson) and a mid-sized city (Evansville), whereas they are hardly connected in between because of miles of bottomland and sprawl, makes no fiscal sense.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 18, 2018, 10:13:27 AM
they gave louisville 3 bridges, why can't they give 3 to this metro area?

Because Henderson is a very small city in comparison to Louisville's metropolitan area. And I-65's traffic counts and the percentage of trucks that use that route justified the bridges to planners.

And as much as I supported the East End Bridge (I-265), I found that rebuilding the downtown interchange and adding a second interchange was premature and needed to wait until traffic settled out. And my projections were right (https://www.urbanophile.com/2018/11/26/louisville-bridges-project-is-the-biggest-transportation-boondoggle-of-the-21st-century/). The twin I-65 bridges, with 12 lanes between them, are -very- far below projections, even during rush hour. Traffic simply shifted to the free I-64 and US 31 bridges. The East End Bridge (I-265) is operating near projections.

Maintaining three bridges for a small city (Henderson) and a mid-sized city (Evansville), whereas they are hardly connected in between because of miles of bottomland and sprawl, makes no fiscal sense.

doesn't sound like the louisville bridges made fiscal sense either. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on December 18, 2018, 10:15:44 AM
Glad to see this project moving forward.  Certainly seems like Indiana & Kentucky could be done with I-69 by the mid-2020s, maybe sans some work in Fulton, KY (due to KY waiting on TN).

they gave louisville 3 bridges, why can't they give 3 to this metro area?

Louisville has 5 bridges:
Sherman Minton (I-64)
Clark Memorial (US-31)
John F Kennedy (I-65 SB)
Abraham Lincoln (I-65 NB)
Lewis & Clark (IN 265/KY 841)

Louisville metro area has 1,293,953 versus Evansville's 358,676
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on December 18, 2018, 03:06:06 PM
I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: TheStranger on December 18, 2018, 03:16:33 PM
I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.

For those traveling north-south without stopping in Louisville, taking 264 west to 64 west to 265 east only adds 4.6 miles to the trip - not too significant if making a longer journey.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Scottb5411 on January 03, 2019, 10:22:32 PM
I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.

For those traveling north-south without stopping in Louisville, taking 264 west to 64 west to 265 east only adds 4.6 miles to the trip - not too significant if making a longer journey.

I work in Nashville, live in St Louis, but just before Thanksgiving last year I had finished work and then drove to O'Hare to pick up a friend flying in from the UK (I know, but he got a REALLY good deal on flights). Taking I264-64-265 added a whole 6 minutes to my arrival time, only rush hour would maybe make me go over the bridge and pay the toll, which I'd be forced to pay by mail as I have no I-Pass.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on January 05, 2019, 02:25:37 PM
I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps for through traffic, but not all local commuters are able to afford the extra cost of tolls on their already stretched-thin budgets. But (warning: personal opinion follows) the politicians who impose tolls are all wealthy enough to ignore the impact of such tolls on the poor & the rapidly shrinking middle class. Eisenhower has to be rolling in his grave over the fact that the Feds (under the Dubya administration & the Congress at the time) allowed tolling to be imposed on previously-completed Interstate highways.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on January 05, 2019, 03:10:29 PM
^^^^^^^^
There's a certain type of algorithm involved with the joint decision to deploy a tolled I-69 bridge and retain a (possibly) free single US 41 2-lane (1+1) span.  Even with retention of a single albeit lowered-capacity free crossing, there's liable to be a cost to the user in terms of time, particularly if regular Evansville-Henderson commuters start crowding onto the reduced span.  That's pretty much an unknown (albeit statistically estimable) factor, since the current situation is a 2+2 free-crossing but "surface" road arrangement; the AADT and other stats are a known factor, but interpolating it into what would happen with the future freeway wouldn't be terribly exacting.  My own guess would be that most of the interregional traffic would shift to I-69, as would part of any commute traffic (particularly from the northern outskirts of Evansville); I wouldn't anticipate much in the way of long-distance "shunpiking" -- but I would expect at least half of local traffic to keep using the truncated US 41 facility, and that it would see congestion shortly down the line, if not from the beginning.  It also would probably be prudent to do a combination of ORT and maybe a single cash lane per direction on the I-69 bridge with the usual price differential between them.  Eventually some sort of equilibrium would be achieved -- a "natural" trade-off between time convenience and/or speed via the new I-69 bridge, or the likely congestion of a single-lane surface-road crossing, albeit at no immediate cash cost to the driver. 

IMO, if the single bridge is retained, tolling it would be a mistake that would likely result in some degree of congestion on even the tolled I-69 bridge, since the higher-capacity facility would likely be the selection utilized by more local drivers unless the US 41 two-lane structure just happened to be more convenient for a particular destination.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on January 05, 2019, 03:23:22 PM
^^^^^^^^
There's a certain type of algorithm involved with the joint decision to deploy a tolled I-69 bridge and retain a (possibly) free single US 41 2-lane (1+1) span.  Even with retention of a single albeit lowered-capacity free crossing, there's liable to be a cost to the user in terms of time, particularly if regular Evansville-Henderson commuters start crowding onto the reduced span.  That's pretty much an unknown (albeit statistically estimable) factor, since the current situation is a 2+2 free-crossing but "surface" road arrangement; the AADT and other stats are a known factor, but interpolating it into what would happen with the future freeway wouldn't be terribly exacting.  My own guess would be that most of the interregional traffic would shift to I-69, as would part of any commute traffic (particularly from the northern outskirts of Evansville); I wouldn't anticipate much in the way of long-distance "shunpiking" -- but I would expect at least half of local traffic to keep using the truncated US 41 facility, and that it would see congestion shortly down the line, if not from the beginning.  It also would probably be prudent to do a combination of ORT and maybe a single cash lane per direction on the I-69 bridge with the usual price differential between them.  Eventually some sort of equilibrium would be achieved -- a "natural" trade-off between time convenience and/or speed via the new I-69 bridge, or the likely congestion of a single-lane surface-road crossing, albeit at no immediate cash cost to the driver. 

IMO, if the single bridge is retained, tolling it would be a mistake that would likely result in some degree of congestion on even the tolled I-69 bridge, since the higher-capacity facility would likely be the selection utilized by more local drivers unless the US 41 two-lane structure just happened to be more convenient for a particular destination.

It would be just as easy to build an easy on/easy off express lane(s) on the same bridge for local traffic only toll free. It would be for river crossing only. If you want to go farther, you gotta pay the tolled on/off ramp.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on January 05, 2019, 08:49:51 PM
^^^^^^^^
There's a certain type of algorithm involved with the joint decision to deploy a tolled I-69 bridge and retain a (possibly) free single US 41 2-lane (1+1) span.  Even with retention of a single albeit lowered-capacity free crossing, there's liable to be a cost to the user in terms of time, particularly if regular Evansville-Henderson commuters start crowding onto the reduced span.  That's pretty much an unknown (albeit statistically estimable) factor, since the current situation is a 2+2 free-crossing but "surface" road arrangement; the AADT and other stats are a known factor, but interpolating it into what would happen with the future freeway wouldn't be terribly exacting.  My own guess would be that most of the interregional traffic would shift to I-69, as would part of any commute traffic (particularly from the northern outskirts of Evansville); I wouldn't anticipate much in the way of long-distance "shunpiking" -- but I would expect at least half of local traffic to keep using the truncated US 41 facility, and that it would see congestion shortly down the line, if not from the beginning.  It also would probably be prudent to do a combination of ORT and maybe a single cash lane per direction on the I-69 bridge with the usual price differential between them.  Eventually some sort of equilibrium would be achieved -- a "natural" trade-off between time convenience and/or speed via the new I-69 bridge, or the likely congestion of a single-lane surface-road crossing, albeit at no immediate cash cost to the driver. 

IMO, if the single bridge is retained, tolling it would be a mistake that would likely result in some degree of congestion on even the tolled I-69 bridge, since the higher-capacity facility would likely be the selection utilized by more local drivers unless the US 41 two-lane structure just happened to be more convenient for a particular destination.

It would be just as easy to build an easy on/easy off express lane(s) on the same bridge for local traffic only toll free. It would be for river crossing only. If you want to go farther, you gotta pay the tolled on/off ramp.

An example would be the DE 1 crossing of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the bridge tollgate is south of the first interchange south of the bridge, allowing locals to cross for *free*.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on January 06, 2019, 12:36:04 AM
^^^^^^^^^
I'm presuming that all this is referring to the I-69 bridge and not the remaining US 41 crossing, which is and will be in the future a strictly surface facility.  From what I understand, the new bridge will be 4 lanes only (for economy's sake); a "local" service lane in addition to that would kick the cost of the bridge well up beyond what KY and IN are expecting.  To me, that's a measure that does not have to be taken -- just let the new bridge be generally tolled for all traffic and keep the US 41 2-lane bridge free; it'll get used by locals who would rather not pay and are willing to put up with localized congestion; those who aren't so willing will have to suck it up and use the I-69 bridge -- paying for the convenience and likely avoidance of congestion. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: 2trailertrucker on January 06, 2019, 03:51:35 PM
I wonder how much traffic will be on the US 41 bridge after the new bridges are built. It reminds me of US 31 through Kokomo. How much traffic followed the bypass?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 06, 2019, 07:46:03 PM
I wonder how much traffic will be on the US 41 bridge after the new bridges are built. It reminds me of US 31 through Kokomo. How much traffic followed the bypass?

I think locals traveling between Henderson and downtown Evansville, who won't want to go out of their way to the east and then back west again, will use the old bridge. Also anyone who exits I-69 for some of the services along the US 41 "strip", and doesn't want to take US 60 out to re-enter I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 07, 2019, 08:49:19 PM
Has there been any discussion on the design of the I-69 bridge?  I recall the original 2004 Draft EIS had called for a cable-stayed structure to carry I-69 over the Ohio River. Would anyone happen to know if they are still considering a cable-stayed bridge for the current EIS, or are they proposing a different bridge design?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on January 07, 2019, 09:53:29 PM
Has there been any discussion on the design of the I-69 bridge?  I recall the original 2004 Draft EIS had called for a cable-stayed structure to carry I-69 over the Ohio River. Would anyone happen to know if they are still considering a cable-stayed bridge for the current EIS, or are they proposing a different bridge design?

I haven't seen any design proposals.

But being like most DOT's, they will probably have the design/engineering firm use a template.  And since they already said it will be cable stayed, it will probably look like either the Musial-Veterans (I-70) bridge or the Lewis and Clark in Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 08, 2019, 09:28:08 AM
I would be shocked if it the new bridge was something other than a cable-stay main span.  For the distance needed, a two tower cable-stay is the most economical bridge type to construct.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on June 22, 2019, 12:53:49 PM
Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on June 22, 2019, 02:09:20 PM
Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
IMHO, the people of Evansville & Henderson should accept ONLY Alternative 1B, as that maintains a TOLL-FREE crossing of the river on US 41. Just because we now have stop-free tolling technology does NOT mean it should be used at EVERY major river crossing!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on June 22, 2019, 03:08:47 PM
Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
IMHO, the people of Evansville & Henderson should accept ONLY Alternative 1B, as that maintains a TOLL-FREE crossing of the river on US 41. Just because we now have stop-free tolling technology does NOT mean it should be used at EVERY major river crossing!
Owensboro should push for 1A, making the next closest free bridge the US 231 crossing...possibly seeing more traffic and business from potential shunpiking

Also that would be a good time for KYTC to eliminate the at-grade US 231/60 northern/eastern split
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2019, 03:18:19 PM
If they choose Alternative 1A, they should dedicate all the toll money to building and maintaining the Interstate 69 bridge. No toll money diversions for other purposes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2019, 04:11:39 PM
Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
IMHO, the people of Evansville & Henderson should accept ONLY Alternative 1B, as that maintains a TOLL-FREE crossing of the river on US 41. Just because we now have stop-free tolling technology does NOT mean it should be used at EVERY major river crossing!
Owensboro should push for 1A, making the next closest free bridge the US 231 crossing...possibly seeing more traffic and business from potential shunpiking

Also that would be a good time for KYTC to eliminate the at-grade US 231/60 northern/eastern split

Owensboro and its various official entities should realize by now they really don't have a dog in this race -- and should stay out of the toll vs. no-toll discussion regarding the US 41 crossing; neither the US 231 nor the IN 161 crossings are a viable shunpiking alternative, considering how much fuel would be used to schlep upriver to cross there.  Instead, they should concentrate on things that would be more productive for their interests:  getting an Interstate designation for the Audubon once the I-69 alignment has been finalized and lobbying for funds to upgrade the US 60 bypass. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on June 22, 2019, 04:27:56 PM
Owensboro does not have a dog in Local shunpiking...but Regional/Long Distance travel, perhaps, especially if the travel destination is east on I-64 across the Ohio...but then again that traffic would probably continue along the Western KY Pkwy

For Evansville/Henderson commuters that cross the Ohio daily, either leaving US 41 Untolled or having a discount/free EZ-Pass account program based on Zip Code/Address would probably be appropriate. Where the “Discount/Free”  vs “Regular Price”  line is placed, who knows. And perhaps even a “Free”  area, “Discount”  a bit further out, and then full price. And consider also only allowing a Free/Discount program on the existing US 41 bridge, not the new I-69 bridge - make that full price regardless

I have no idea what Tolling strategies were studied to recommend tolling and what each strategy is valued at, in terms of toll revenue. Obviously if regular commuters are toll exempted or discounted, that will lower toll receipts
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 22, 2019, 07:30:46 PM
Owensboro does not have a dog in Local shunpiking...but Regional/Long Distance travel, perhaps, especially if the travel destination is east on I-64 across the Ohio...but then again that traffic would probably continue along the Western KY Pkwy

For Evansville/Henderson commuters that cross the Ohio daily, either leaving US 41 Untolled or having a discount/free EZ-Pass account program based on Zip Code/Address would probably be appropriate. Where the “Discount/Free”  vs “Regular Price”  line is placed, who knows. And perhaps even a “Free”  area, “Discount”  a bit further out, and then full price. And consider also only allowing a Free/Discount program on the existing US 41 bridge, not the new I-69 bridge - make that full price regardless

I have no idea what Tolling strategies were studied to recommend tolling and what each strategy is valued at, in terms of toll revenue. Obviously if regular commuters are toll exempted or discounted, that will lower toll receipts

There's a commuter option for the Louisville bridges; no reason to think there wouldn't be for I-69 since many of the same players are involved in the development and marketing of the plans.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on June 23, 2019, 11:34:13 AM
Glad to see this project moving forward.  Certainly seems like Indiana & Kentucky could be done with I-69 by the mid-2020s, maybe sans some work in Fulton, KY (due to KY waiting on TN).

they gave louisville 3 bridges, why can't they give 3 to this metro area?

Louisville has 5 bridges:
Sherman Minton (I-64)
Clark Memorial (US-31)
John F Kennedy (I-65 SB)
Abraham Lincoln (I-65 NB)
Lewis & Clark (IN 265/KY 841)

Louisville metro area has 1,293,953 versus Evansville's 358,676

What people generally miss is all these discussions is how low traffic volumes are now and projected for the EVV-Henderson crossings. Unless the government, state or federal, puts up a lot more money there is a huge gap between toll revenues if BOTH bridges are tolled = if you keep 41 bridge free the funding gap increases more.  The Tolling issue is a math problem. Philosophical and Fairness debates aren't relevant. Tolling has to be done in a way for the project to "pay" for itself. Again, more "tax" money means lower need for toll revenues which changes the math.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on June 23, 2019, 02:49:31 PM
If/when I-69 into Memphis, TN is completed, will there even be much of a time/mileage benefit Indy <-> Memphis via I-69 vs I-70<->I-57<->I-55?

And if/when MO&AR get the “missing”  extended I-57 section built (Walnut Ridge<->Poplar Bluff) that makes I-57 not just a St Louis Bypass but also a Memphis Bypass, there is no way I-69 has any advantage to Texas-bound traffic, and would be questionable if it would even save time/miles if/when AR&LA (and a Mississippi River Bridge) get their sections of I-69 constructed

I assume any Tolling study has accounted for this. Maybe I’m overly skeptical

I think an Interstate bridge would be an in-demand route for an upgraded US 41 Chicago-Nashville corridor, if US 41 (IN 63 where appropriate) could make it to Interstate standard, or at least a minimum of a Terre Haute Bypass and a freeway connection to the south end of the IL 394 Freeway/Expressway, but I am getting Fictional, and too high a toll would still have Long Distance/Freight traffic using the current “Free”  I-57/I-24 route or the “mostly Free”  (depending on Chicagoland route and if shunpiking the I-65 bridge toll in Louisville) or comparably tolled I-80/94 <-> I-65 route
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2019, 03:41:27 PM
If/when I-69 into Memphis, TN is completed, will there even be much of a time/mileage benefit Indy <-> Memphis via I-69 vs I-70<->I-57<->I-55?

And if/when MO&AR get the “missing”  extended I-57 section built (Walnut Ridge<->Poplar Bluff) that makes I-57 not just a St Louis Bypass but also a Memphis Bypass, there is no way I-69 has any advantage to Texas-bound traffic, and would be questionable if it would even save time/miles if/when AR&LA (and a Mississippi River Bridge) get their sections of I-69 constructed

I assume any Tolling study has accounted for this. Maybe I’m overly skeptical

I think an Interstate bridge would be an in-demand route for an upgraded US 41 Chicago-Nashville corridor, if US 41 (IN 63 where appropriate) could make it to Interstate standard, or at least a minimum of a Terre Haute Bypass and a freeway connection to the south end of the IL 394 Freeway/Expressway, but I am getting Fictional, and too high a toll would still have Long Distance/Freight traffic using the current “Free”  I-57/I-24 route or the “mostly Free”  (depending on Chicagoland route and if shunpiking the I-65 bridge toll in Louisville) or comparably tolled I-80/94 <-> I-65 route

Intriguing observations -- and quite prescient if TX completes its I-69/369 composite corridor from Houston to I-30, and the I-57 MO/AR extension is built, that almost obviates the center section of I-69 between Shreveport & Memphis, since the major drawback to the longstanding existing route -- the increasingly congested I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis -- is effectively bypassed in regards to Houston to the Great Lakes region traffic, with the I-57/I-70 corridor via Effingham, IL subbing in for the entire Indy-Memphis section of I-69 -- which now focuses long-distance traffic on Memphis origins & destinations, not those in TX; they have an equally efficient path elsewhere -- with the advantage of not traversing much in the way of large metro chokepoints (Terre Haute and Little Rock being the most substantial along that corridor).  The efforts to complete the northern I-69 Indy-Memphis segment will be, at least near/medium-term, in provision of benefit to traffic heading from Indiana to Memphis and possibly the New Orleans area via I-55.  To be fair, the latter routing does bypass Louisville, Nashville, and possibly the three Alabama metro areas arrayed along I-65 (Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile), and there is always I-269 as a Memphis bypass, though a little plagued with backtracking regarding the northern E-W section now signed MS 385.  Even with Ohio River tolling, I-69 will, in all likelihood, provide a more efficient (and to truckers, cost-effective when time is calculated into the equation) path to the lower Mississippi River commercial areas than is currently available.  But Texas access?  Not so much; the center I-69 segment will be just another alternative, not appreciably better than its competition.  It might eventually be built -- but it'll be local southern AR interests pressing for its development, not hordes of truckers looking for a better route from Houston to the Great Lakes. 

When considering the whole of the I-69 project, remember that the most vehement backers were concentrated in Indiana and Texas; the former just wanted to see the Evansville area connected (from two directions if possible) by an Interstate corridor, and the latter had two goals (outlined extensively in several Mid-South threads):  providing an Interstate outlet from Houston to the northeast (I-30 and, to a lesser extent, I-20 & I-49) and developing a South TX network covering most of the border crossings and funneling such to Houston.  In fits and pieces, they're well on their way to getting those goals achieved.  The center section was simply a vehicle so that the backers of the project could claim national rather than regional benefits for the whole corridor by tying the two more "vital" segments together, bringing some rural interests on board as well.  Unfortunately, the three states through which that segment travel are three that are perennially needing to scrounge money for projects -- and other projects have taken precedence over a I-69 section promising relatively little in the way of traffic or significant benefits -- but with a project feature -- the Great River Bridge -- whose construction cost will dwarf any other particular part of the entire corridor, and which the involved states can ill afford.   Hardly an undertaking that any of the jurisdictions in question are in any hurry to expedite! 

But the Indy-Memphis section -- a very long "SIU" if you will, will eventually be completed; it does have regional value -- and most of it is built or well under way.  And a tolled I-69 Ohio River bridge will be an integral part of it, regardless of how the local tolling issue shakes out; except for some reticence on the part of TN, the states and other parties involved with that corridor segment have gone "all in".     
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on June 25, 2019, 01:15:06 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but with Arkansas and Mississippi budgetary concerns, I don't know why (short of cancelling their proposals), why they don't simply use more of what they have and incorporate the current Greenville MS bridge of US-82 for the I-69 crossing and then Arkansas can shoot it across US-82 and then down US-425 to Louisiana and then LA can have it meet up with I-20 near Monroe and twin to Shreveport.  Arkansas would make out like a bandit since they wouldn't have to fund the Great River Bridge, and I-69 will incorporate some of the US-82 project that they want to do across the state.  Mississippi would have to pay a little more for upgrading US-61, but again, that bridge wouldn't have to be built, nor the approaches.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 25, 2019, 03:42:29 PM
It's not always about time/distance in setting new routes, its sometimes about capacity between endpoints.

It's not always about the most efficient route, sometimes its about adequate alternative routing, especially during national disasters.

It's not always about the economic route, its about the route that provide the most economic gain in areas where it doesn't exist.

This bridge may be <$1B in 2030, but what will the return to the region be in 2060?

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 25, 2019, 04:41:58 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but with Arkansas and Mississippi budgetary concerns, I don't know why (short of cancelling their proposals), why they don't simply use more of what they have and incorporate the current Greenville MS bridge of US-82 for the I-69 crossing and then Arkansas can shoot it across US-82 and then down US-425 to Louisiana and then LA can have it meet up with I-20 near Monroe and twin to Shreveport.  Arkansas would make out like a bandit since they wouldn't have to fund the Great River Bridge, and I-69 will incorporate some of the US-82 project that they want to do across the state.  Mississippi would have to pay a little more for upgrading US-61, but again, that bridge wouldn't have to be built, nor the approaches.

I can think of two reasons why the above won't happen: (1) the actual routing and the Great River Bridge are written into the HPC #18/I-69 definition, and thus into Title 23 of the U.S. Code; it would take an act of Congress to significantly change anything -- ARDOT can't do anything about it unilaterally.  (2) It would add additional miles within Mississippi -- which of the 3 states involved in this corridor segment is the most penniless when it comes to discretionary highway funds -- like has been stated previously, they "blew their wad", money-wise, with I-269 and the I-22 improvements.  The I-69 "spur" from I-55 west to US 61 was a somewhat sneaky way to get HPC 18-level (max Fed 80%) funding for a spur that essentially enhances access to the Tunica casinos.  The only other section functionally completed in MS is the US 61 Clarksdale bypass -- but no one's in any hurry to sign that as I-69 until some semblance of a connection north to Tunica is constructed. 

Actually, I thought of a 3rd reason why US 82 or a Monroe "shortcut" wouldn't be in the cards -- ARDOT has already spent federal funds on the initial phase of the Monticello bypass -- plus the AR 530 expressway from Monticello the Pine Bluff is part of the HPC 18/I-69 "family"; receiving funding from that legislation.  That north-south connector is arguably one of the reasons why AR agreed to the I-69 routing along US 278; their congressional delegation had lobbied for a "split" corridor with one branch heading up US 79 then back into MS more or less following US 49 across the river, and the other the Great River bridge route that still is on the books.  They got AR 530 added to the I-69 legislation as a "consolation prize" for not getting the longer route.  Now -- in a "Fictional" world, 530 could be extended south parallel to US 425 to US 82, tying in with the modified I-69 route described in the above post (keeping AR interests happy) -- but until the Great River bridge concept is deleted from the present code, that won't happen. 

The route modification described above has quite a bit of merit -- it just has too many ducks to get in line for it to be feasible -- and more than a few of those ducks are already lined up somewhere else!  It's more than likely that much of I-69's "new terrain" alignment was set in stone in order to provide as many localized projects along the corridor as possible; a multiplex from Shreveport to Monroe would have lessened that potential -- so the El Dorado/Monticello routing was finalized.  And to ARDOT, the I-69 corridor alignment indicated that they were paying attention to a long-neglected part of the state rather than simply favoring Little Rock or NWA!   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 25, 2019, 06:56:30 PM
i-69 in mississippi and arkansas is a waste of time and money.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: inkyatari on June 26, 2019, 09:43:19 AM
i-69 in mississippi and arkansas is a waste of time and money.

In the Fictional Highways section, I have a plan to truncate 69 to Memphis, but have I 57 extend from IL to Brownsville TX. That would require less construction, and be more economically feasible.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19151.0
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on June 26, 2019, 01:56:48 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but with Arkansas and Mississippi budgetary concerns, I don't know why (short of cancelling their proposals), why they don't simply use more of what they have and incorporate the current Greenville MS bridge of US-82 for the I-69 crossing and then Arkansas can shoot it across US-82 and then down US-425 to Louisiana and then LA can have it meet up with I-20 near Monroe and twin to Shreveport.  Arkansas would make out like a bandit since they wouldn't have to fund the Great River Bridge, and I-69 will incorporate some of the US-82 project that they want to do across the state.  Mississippi would have to pay a little more for upgrading US-61, but again, that bridge wouldn't have to be built, nor the approaches.

I can think of two reasons why the above won't happen: (1) the actual routing and the Great River Bridge are written into the HPC #18/I-69 definition, and thus into Title 23 of the U.S. Code; it would take an act of Congress to significantly change anything -- ARDOT can't do anything about it unilaterally.  (2) It would add additional miles within Mississippi -- which of the 3 states involved in this corridor segment is the most penniless when it comes to discretionary highway funds -- like has been stated previously, they "blew their wad", money-wise, with I-269 and the I-22 improvements.  The I-69 "spur" from I-55 west to US 61 was a somewhat sneaky way to get HPC 18-level (max Fed 80%) funding for a spur that essentially enhances access to the Tunica casinos.  The only other section functionally completed in MS is the US 61 Clarksdale bypass -- but no one's in any hurry to sign that as I-69 until some semblance of a connection north to Tunica is constructed. 

Actually, I thought of a 3rd reason why US 82 or a Monroe "shortcut" wouldn't be in the cards -- ARDOT has already spent federal funds on the initial phase of the Monticello bypass -- plus the AR 530 expressway from Monticello the Pine Bluff is part of the HPC 18/I-69 "family"; receiving funding from that legislation.  That north-south connector is arguably one of the reasons why AR agreed to the I-69 routing along US 278; their congressional delegation had lobbied for a "split" corridor with one branch heading up US 79 then back into MS more or less following US 49 across the river, and the other the Great River bridge route that still is on the books.  They got AR 530 added to the I-69 legislation as a "consolation prize" for not getting the longer route.  Now -- in a "Fictional" world, 530 could be extended south parallel to US 425 to US 82, tying in with the modified I-69 route described in the above post (keeping AR interests happy) -- but until the Great River bridge concept is deleted from the present code, that won't happen. 

The route modification described above has quite a bit of merit -- it just has too many ducks to get in line for it to be feasible -- and more than a few of those ducks are already lined up somewhere else!  It's more than likely that much of I-69's "new terrain" alignment was set in stone in order to provide as many localized projects along the corridor as possible; a multiplex from Shreveport to Monroe would have lessened that potential -- so the El Dorado/Monticello routing was finalized.  And to ARDOT, the I-69 corridor alignment indicated that they were paying attention to a long-neglected part of the state rather than simply favoring Little Rock or NWA!   
I agree with every one of your assessments.  I am just always amazed at what "educated and elected planners" come up with, and avoid some common sense options.  I know local and regional politics come into play way too often, but how much money and time do we have to waste?  I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis actually had a route agreed upon in the 90s, and then they had to go back to do the entire process over again, and the route is basically the same one that was originally mapped out.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 26, 2019, 05:16:09 PM
............I know local and regional politics come into play way too often, but how much money and time do we have to waste?  I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis actually had a route agreed upon in the 90s, and then they had to go back to do the entire process over again, and the route is basically the same one that was originally mapped out.

In response to the first question, a reasonable answer to both time & money issues is as much as is necessary to satisfy political realities -- and in the case of planned freeway corridors, more pertaining to local considerations than national, although the latter come into play when year-to-year federal outlays are being proffered and deliberated.  Ever since the last of the available chargeable mileage was completed in the '90's, all major projects receiving significant federal funding have basically been political creatures (for better or worse -- too often the latter!).  But in today's divisive political (and economic) scene, there is absolutely no suggestion or even hint that the top-down but highly vetted approach utilized with the original '56 Interstate authorizing legislation and its batch of chargeable additions in '68 will be reinstated or replicated.  Since that method's demise back in the Nixon administration ('73) -- specifically enacted to inhibit/truncate systemic origination from D.C. -- planning efforts have been "kicked downstairs", so to speak -- coming from local communities, MPO's, and occasionally the states themselves (e.g., recent NC efforts).  With that many actors involved in the various regional projects, it's inevitable that politics will play an outsized role in the process -- whether to speed up progress on a particular corridor or to attempt to "shape" it to accommodate any number of alternate sets of needs or priorities.   All one can wish for in such circumstances is that some sense of realism creeps into the ongoing process, and that a viable corridor with decent utility will emerge from the cauldron.  So far we've been pleasantly surprised by how some of these have turned out (I-22, what's been done so far with I-49) but OTOH have been frustrated or annoyed with others (the I-73/74 "camel" -- e.g. a "horse designed by a committee", and much of the I-69 overall project).  In the case of the Indiana routing, it seems that the "wild card" was always Bloomington, interests from which apparently and initially expressed a preference that I-69 give them a wide berth, but eventually other voices prevailed (maybe students, parents, and sympathetic legislators wanting to ensure that I-69 funding provided a safer route between Bloomington and Indy) -- with the results being that the more direct Evansville-Indy alternate routes along IN 57 and 67 were discarded.  But there was precedent in IN for such considerations -- i.e. the Anderson/Muncie "bulge" on the original northern I-69 segment that departed from the direct Fort Wayne path up IN 37.  Like most places, IN seems to have a "love/hate" relationship with their Interstate corridors that has played out as it has in the planning process.       
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ukfan758 on July 04, 2019, 12:25:58 AM
i-69 in mississippi and arkansas is a waste of time and money.

In the Fictional Highways section, I have a plan to truncate 69 to Memphis, but have I 57 extend from IL to Brownsville TX. That would require less construction, and be more economically feasible.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19151.0

I would route 69 all the way to Texarkana and then have a concurrency with I-30 to Little Rock and I-40 to Memphis. Arkansas would need to widen both interstates to facilitate this but it should be far cheaper than trying to build a freeway through the middle of nowhere with new river crossings and it would also improve capacity and safety on both I-30 and 40.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2019, 07:46:12 PM
I mean i appreciate that they are saving the 1932 bridge over the newer one... but it is just a weird choice that may bite them in the butt later on as maintence costs increase.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on July 05, 2019, 11:24:08 PM
I mean i appreciate that they are saving the 1932 bridge over the newer one... but it is just a weird choice that may bite them in the butt later on as maintence costs increase.

I found that to be a bit odd as well, but they're probably thinking the 1932 bridge has a lot more historical value than the parallel span built in the '50s. If the 1932 bridge is listed in the National Register of Historical places, that would be a huge factor in that decision, but I don't know whether or not the 1932 bridge is list in the NHRP.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on July 06, 2019, 03:03:09 PM
I mean i appreciate that they are saving the 1932 bridge over the newer one... but it is just a weird choice that may bite them in the butt later on as maintence costs increase.

I found that to be a bit odd as well, but they're probably thinking the 1932 bridge has a lot more historical value than the parallel span built in the '50s. If the 1932 bridge is listed in the National Register of Historical places, that would be a huge factor in that decision, but I don't know whether or not the 1932 bridge is list in the NHRP.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the 1966 bridge having the brittle steel in it, like other bridges of its age. I seem to remember reading that it does. At any rate, the older one has held up fairly well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 06, 2019, 04:36:05 PM
I mean i appreciate that they are saving the 1932 bridge over the newer one... but it is just a weird choice that may bite them in the butt later on as maintence costs increase.

I found that to be a bit odd as well, but they're probably thinking the 1932 bridge has a lot more historical value than the parallel span built in the '50s. If the 1932 bridge is listed in the National Register of Historical places, that would be a huge factor in that decision, but I don't know whether or not the 1932 bridge is list in the NHRP.

They are saying it has more historical value and that the only reason the 1960s one has any value is due to the proximity of the 1932 one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Stephane Dumas on July 06, 2019, 08:17:08 PM

I wonder if it has anything to do with the 1966 bridge having the brittle steel in it, like other bridges of its age. I seem to remember reading that it does. At any rate, the older one has held up fairly well.

Does the 1932 bridge had been retrofitted for standing against an earthquake since the New Madrid fault and the Wabash valley seismic zone are not far from Evansville and Henderson?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on July 07, 2019, 08:41:24 PM
i-69 in mississippi and arkansas is a waste of time and money.

In the Fictional Highways section, I have a plan to truncate 69 to Memphis, but have I 57 extend from IL to Brownsville TX. That would require less construction, and be more economically feasible.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19151.0

I would route 69 all the way to Texarkana and then have a concurrency with I-30 to Little Rock and I-40 to Memphis. Arkansas would need to widen both interstates to facilitate this but it should be far cheaper than trying to build a freeway through the middle of nowhere with new river crossings and it would also improve capacity and safety on both I-30 and 40.

You are trying to be rational and, as we all know, there is no rationality when it comes to routing Interstate highways in our time.  As Tip O'Neill was noted for saying, "All politics is local". Highway routing is about as local as it gets these days.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on October 24, 2019, 01:37:08 AM
It's been quite some time since anything has been published in the media on the I-69 bridge across the Ohio River, and the I-69 ORX website hasn't been updated since February.  Anyone happen to know if KYTC and INDOT are still making forward progress toward completing the environmental studies and securing funding for construction, or was the activity we saw within the last couple of years just another false start for the bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on October 24, 2019, 11:55:01 AM
It's been quite some time since anything has been published in the media on the I-69 bridge across the Ohio River, and the I-69 ORX website hasn't been updated since February.  Anyone happen to know if KYTC and INDOT are still making forward progress toward completing the environmental studies and securing funding for construction, or was the activity we saw within the last couple of years just another false start for the bridge?

Lack of funds makes for slow going.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2019, 04:47:42 PM
Not positive, but I think there may be some enabling legislation in the works for next year's Kentucky General Assembly session for bi-state work. KYTC is still paying C2 Strategic for PR on this project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on October 25, 2019, 03:28:01 PM
Not positive, but I think there may be some enabling legislation in the works for next year's Kentucky General Assembly session for bi-state work. KYTC is still paying C2 Strategic for PR on this project.

That would make sense.  Indiana already has money to pay for their portion of the bridge (mainly the northern approach and a new interchange to tie into the existing I-69; not to mention that Indiana is footing the bill for the current round of environmental studies.  That would place the onus on Kentucky to come up with the funds to build the bridge itself and the southern approach.

Has there been any discussion on what design of bridge it will be (girder/floorbeam, truss, cable-stay, etc.)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on October 28, 2019, 10:10:57 PM
Not positive, but I think there may be some enabling legislation in the works for next year's Kentucky General Assembly session for bi-state work. KYTC is still paying C2 Strategic for PR on this project.

That would make sense.  Indiana already has money to pay for their portion of the bridge (mainly the northern approach and a new interchange to tie into the existing I-69; not to mention that Indiana is footing the bill for the current round of environmental studies.  That would place the onus on Kentucky to come up with the funds to build the bridge itself and the southern approach.

Has there been any discussion on what design of bridge it will be (girder/floorbeam, truss, cable-stay, etc.)?

Since DOT's like to work from templates to keep the costs down, I suspect it will be what they are using throughout the country right now. Concrete towers with a cable stayed deck. The new Tappan Zee used a new tower design, but the technology is roughly the same. I would assume KDOT would use a similar design to the Lewis & Clark Bridge upstream. Boring, yes, cheap, yes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 31, 2020, 01:45:49 PM
Looks like there is some positive movement in the toward funding the I-69 ORX. The Governor's 6-Year Road Plan includes $267 million toward constructing the southern approach from the current end of I-69 south of Henderson to US-60. According to the plan, construction on this phase could start in 2022.  Officials from Kentucky are still working out the details on how to secure the remaining $640 million they need for the bridge, but Indiana has its funding lined up and is ready to go as soon as Kentucky finances its portion.

https://surfky.com/index.php/ohio/179-news/kentucky/147491-kytc-highway-plan-includes-267b-for-i-69-ohio-river-crossing


Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on February 01, 2020, 03:30:01 PM
Indiana finances at the state level are not as transparent as you would think.

Back in the 90's the legislature allocated $750,000 to restore the Riley Locks outside Riley, Indiana where the Wabash & Erie Canal came by and turn it into a park/historical site.

They were going to provide a grant to Rose-Hulman for the site planning and engineering.

It got tons of press locally.

I went through quite a few emails with the local press in Terre Haute, Rose-Hulman University, even the guy who was going to head up the project.

No one saw the money. There is no legislation on record to rescind it, no directives having the money redirected or not spent. Nothing went to bid.

25 years later, nothing has happened and no one knows why. The guy at Rose-Hulman, apparently used to these "lets spend-big PR" announcements put it this way "things move slowly in Indiana, especially when it involves money".

The local press could care less. Just another broken promise as far as they were concerned.

That is why when I see lots of expectations (and press) on a infrastructure project in Indiana, I get skeptical.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 02, 2020, 10:40:51 PM
Indiana finances at the state level are not as transparent as you would think.

Back in the 90's the legislature allocated $750,000 to restore the Riley Locks outside Riley, Indiana where the Wabash & Erie Canal came by and turn it into a park/historical site.

They were going to provide a grant to Rose-Hulman for the site planning and engineering.

It got tons of press locally.

I went through quite a few emails with the local press in Terre Haute, Rose-Hulman University, even the guy who was going to head up the project.

No one saw the money. There is no legislation on record to rescind it, no directives having the money redirected or not spent. Nothing went to bid.

25 years later, nothing has happened and no one knows why. The guy at Rose-Hulman, apparently used to these "lets spend-big PR" announcements put it this way "things move slowly in Indiana, especially when it involves money".

The local press could care less. Just another broken promise as far as they were concerned.

That is why when I see lots of expectations (and press) on a infrastructure project in Indiana, I get skeptical.

It would probably depend on what Indiana's state government views as its top priorities in determining how quickly something gets funded. Completing I-69 has and still is one of Indiana's highest priorities, which includes getting the bridge across the Ohio River built. I think what you'll end up seeing is construction on the I-69 ORX will be well underway, just as the last section between Martinsville and Indianapolis, and the last section of the Purchase Parkway get finished with construction. It should also be around the same time the final sections around Troy, Tennessee will be under construction. If all of those pieces fall into place, you'll have a continuous stretch of I-69 from Canada to at least Dyersburg, Tennessee when the I-69 ORX opens.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on February 03, 2020, 03:35:46 PM
Indiana finances at the state level are not as transparent as you would think.

Back in the 90's the legislature allocated $750,000 to restore the Riley Locks outside Riley, Indiana where the Wabash & Erie Canal came by and turn it into a park/historical site.

They were going to provide a grant to Rose-Hulman for the site planning and engineering.

It got tons of press locally.

I went through quite a few emails with the local press in Terre Haute, Rose-Hulman University, even the guy who was going to head up the project.

No one saw the money. There is no legislation on record to rescind it, no directives having the money redirected or not spent. Nothing went to bid.

25 years later, nothing has happened and no one knows why. The guy at Rose-Hulman, apparently used to these "lets spend-big PR" announcements put it this way "things move slowly in Indiana, especially when it involves money".

The local press could care less. Just another broken promise as far as they were concerned.

That is why when I see lots of expectations (and press) on a infrastructure project in Indiana, I get skeptical.

It would probably depend on what Indiana's state government views as its top priorities in determining how quickly something gets funded. Completing I-69 has and still is one of Indiana's highest priorities, which includes getting the bridge across the Ohio River built. I think what you'll end up seeing is construction on the I-69 ORX will be well underway, just as the last section between Martinsville and Indianapolis, and the last section of the Purchase Parkway get finished with construction. It should also be around the same time the final sections around Troy, Tennessee will be under construction. If all of those pieces fall into place, you'll have a continuous stretch of I-69 from Canada to at least Dyersburg, Tennessee when the I-69 ORX opens.

Agreed.

As my luck runs, 2 years after my follow up on the Riley thing, I found out yesterday the state didn't follow up with the Feds in time and lost the match. The project is technically "on hold", but I had to find out from a newspaper article in 2013 for something that happened back in 1998.

And it was a new highway that exposed the delay.  In the build out for the new US-41 Bypass to I-70 (IN-641), the contractor doing the excavation, uncovered the wooden lock from 1845 buried under 2 feet of silt still in perfect condition.  They pulled the lumber out and its in storage for re-assembly at a future date.

This is exactly what happened up in Ft. Wayne when they were building the I-469 Bypass and the exit with US-24.

Now back to Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on February 04, 2020, 12:12:38 AM
Indiana finances at the state level are not as transparent as you would think.

Back in the 90's the legislature allocated $750,000 to restore the Riley Locks outside Riley, Indiana where the Wabash & Erie Canal came by and turn it into a park/historical site.

Completely unimportant addition to the discussion - I presented on the Riley lock in Professor James Madison's Indiana History class at IUB in 1992/3. I had no idea that another lock was uncovered - and stored! - from the SR 641 construction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on February 04, 2020, 07:56:02 PM
Indiana finances at the state level are not as transparent as you would think.

Back in the 90's the legislature allocated $750,000 to restore the Riley Locks outside Riley, Indiana where the Wabash & Erie Canal came by and turn it into a park/historical site.

Completely unimportant addition to the discussion - I presented on the Riley lock in Professor James Madison's Indiana History class at IUB in 1992/3. I had no idea that another lock was uncovered - and stored! - from the SR 641 construction.

https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/timbers-from-erie-canal-lock-to-be-studied/article_082121ba-8629-52a9-a366-f499b1ffc06a.html (https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/timbers-from-erie-canal-lock-to-be-studied/article_082121ba-8629-52a9-a366-f499b1ffc06a.html)

Hey westerninterloper, do you have a copy of that presentation you did at IUB? I can PM you with my email, I would really love to read it.  I have driven, walked, and searched every inch of the W&E all the way to Evansville.  I even emailed all the project managers for the I-69 project to be on the lookout for any mass graves in and around the Patoka River, where I-69 crosses the canal ROW. (the new I-69 crosses the canal twice) Many Irish canal workers died of typhoid in this area and many were buried "on the spot".

The old I-164 crosses over the canal east of Evansville at IN-62 (Morgan Ave.) as the railroad was built on the towpath. Not many people are aware but the canal ran all the way to what is now the Shirley James Gateway Plaza in downtown Evansville where Pigeon Creek exits to the Ohio. You could at the time take a packet boat all the way from Toledo, Ohio to Evansville Indiana. It took a couple of weeks. Today only a few hours.

Now all you need is I-69 and US-24.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on February 04, 2020, 08:55:24 PM
Indiana finances at the state level are not as transparent as you would think.

Back in the 90's the legislature allocated $750,000 to restore the Riley Locks outside Riley, Indiana where the Wabash & Erie Canal came by and turn it into a park/historical site.

Completely unimportant addition to the discussion - I presented on the Riley lock in Professor James Madison's Indiana History class at IUB in 1992/3. I had no idea that another lock was uncovered - and stored! - from the SR 641 construction.

https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/timbers-from-erie-canal-lock-to-be-studied/article_082121ba-8629-52a9-a366-f499b1ffc06a.html (https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/timbers-from-erie-canal-lock-to-be-studied/article_082121ba-8629-52a9-a366-f499b1ffc06a.html)

Hey westerninterloper, do you have a copy of that presentation you did at IUB? I can PM you with my email, I would really love to read it.  I have driven, walked, and searched every inch of the W&E all the way to Evansville.  I even emailed all the project managers for the I-69 project to be on the lookout for any mass graves in and around the Patoka River, where I-69 crosses the canal ROW. (the new I-69 crosses the canal twice) Many Irish canal workers died of typhoid in this area and many were buried "on the spot".

The old I-164 crosses over the canal east of Evansville at IN-62 (Morgan Ave.) as the railroad was built on the towpath. Not many people are aware but the canal ran all the way to what is now the Shirley James Gateway Plaza in downtown Evansville where Pigeon Creek exits to the Ohio. You could at the time take a packet boat all the way from Toledo, Ohio to Evansville Indiana. It took a couple of weeks. Today only a few hours.

Now all you need is I-69 and US-24.

I don't have the presentation anymore - that was the age before most anything digital. It was a pretty simple presentation, so you probably know more about the lock than I ever did! Sounds like fascinating research on your part - I've long been fascinated by the canals built in the midwest. I grew up in Terre Haute and when I was younger, traced the W&EC/Cross-Cut at least from Worthington to TH. Funny enough, I now live in Toledo OH, so I've traced it up here too. I think the canals and their failure strongly influenced the political culture of Indiana, ingraining a deep aversion to debt and spending, and thus investment and services, to this day in the state.

I was reading this the other day - you might find it interesting - https://www.class900indy.com/post/discovering-the-central-canal-s-buck-creek-culvert
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on February 04, 2020, 09:09:46 PM
Now all you need is I-69 and US-24.

And SR 37

Also, I am curious, while on this subject, with all this talk about investment in the I-69 bridge, is it still slated to be a toll bridge? I'm guessing that it probably still is, but some of these stories had me a little hopeful.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on February 05, 2020, 01:04:19 PM

[/quote]
Also, I am curious, while on this subject, with all this talk about investment in the I-69 bridge, is it still slated to be a toll bridge? I'm guessing that it probably still is, but some of these stories had me a little hopeful.
[/quote]

I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on February 05, 2020, 09:48:35 PM
I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

IIRC, the concept of the I-69 bridge being anything but a tolled facility was discarded early in the development phase; the realities of the size and scope of the project set in almost immediately.  It appears that the current discussions center around what to do with the remaining US 41 crossing(s) and how to still provide local service (and minimizing controversy) but still discourage "shunpiking" of the new I-69 bridge -- in short, let through traffic be subject to tolling, but still provide the free local river crossing long established while making it inconvenient for said through traffic to efficiently utilize the old bridge(s).   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on February 05, 2020, 10:23:05 PM
There are painting projects scheduled for both US 41 spans. Additionally, the Governor has indicated that the project could not move forward without tolls.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on February 06, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

IIRC, the concept of the I-69 bridge being anything but a tolled facility was discarded early in the development phase; the realities of the size and scope of the project set in almost immediately.  It appears that the current discussions center around what to do with the remaining US 41 crossing(s) and how to still provide local service (and minimizing controversy) but still discourage "shunpiking" of the new I-69 bridge -- in short, let through traffic be subject to tolling, but still provide the free local river crossing long established while making it inconvenient for said through traffic to efficiently utilize the old bridge(s).   

The plan for the new Shands Bridge in Florida (which will be tolled), will have an express non-tolled on/off ramp for local traffic only. However, it doesn't have any local river crossing competition for several miles.

I think I commented on this before, but have the new Ohio River toll bridge have the same express free on/off ramps, and tear down one of the US-41 spans, preferably the older 1936 one.

Capacity will then be spread out over a more reasonable distance where it eliminates the "one or the other" argument.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on February 08, 2020, 10:39:43 AM
Picked up from over at the Kentucky thread.

2-1088.20 | C | FY 2022-25 | $267 million: Construct the portion of I-69 Ohio River Bridge project from KY 425/Henderson Bypass to US 60
2-1088.50 | C | FY 2025 | $73.4 million: Work with INDOT to develop a $1.1 billion bi-state package to construct the I-69 Ohio River Bridge between US60 and I-69 in Evansville
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on February 08, 2020, 03:25:31 PM
Picked up from over at the Kentucky thread.

2-1088.20 | C | FY 2022-25 | $267 million: Construct the portion of I-69 Ohio River Bridge project from KY 425/Henderson Bypass to US 60

At least this part serves some use even if it's another 20 years before the bridge gets built. Glad to see KYTC is moving forward on this.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on February 29, 2020, 01:02:45 PM
I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

IIRC, the concept of the I-69 bridge being anything but a tolled facility was discarded early in the development phase; the realities of the size and scope of the project set in almost immediately.  It appears that the current discussions center around what to do with the remaining US 41 crossing(s) and how to still provide local service (and minimizing controversy) but still discourage "shunpiking" of the new I-69 bridge -- in short, let through traffic be subject to tolling, but still provide the free local river crossing long established while making it inconvenient for said through traffic to efficiently utilize the old bridge(s).   

The plan for the new Shands Bridge in Florida (which will be tolled), will have an express non-tolled on/off ramp for local traffic only. However, it doesn't have any local river crossing competition for several miles.

I think I commented on this before, but have the new Ohio River toll bridge have the same express free on/off ramps, and tear down one of the US-41 spans, preferably the older 1936 one.

Capacity will then be spread out over a more reasonable distance where it eliminates the "one or the other" argument.
The last time I read the ORX website (about a month ago), it has already been determined that the older US 41 bridge will stay, and that the newer one will be torn down. Counterintuitive, unless you note they had studied both existing crossings and determined that the long-term maintenance costs were equal for both structures but that the historical value of the newer bridge was negligible. Thus, the 1938 spans will stay and be renovated for 2-way local traffic.

As far as I can tell, no decision has yet been reached weather or not to toll the US 41 crossing along with the new one I-69 or not, but regardless of that decision the interstate bridge will sadly have electronic tolls imposed on it from the beginning.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 29, 2020, 05:19:38 PM
I still think it's a really dumb decision to tear down one of the existing bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on February 29, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
The last time I read the ORX website (about a month ago), it has already been determined that the older US 41 bridge will stay, and that the newer one will be torn down. Counterintuitive, unless you note they had studied both existing crossings and determined that the long-term maintenance costs were equal for both structures but that the historical value of the newer bridge was negligible. Thus, the 1938 spans will stay and be renovated for 2-way local traffic.

Like most people would be able to tell the difference between the older and newer bridge.  The deck truss spans won't even be visible to most.

Are they taking into account how much more it might cost to rehab the older bridge?  It will probably loose some of its historic look if any of the truss members have to be replaced - unless extra effort (and cost) is made to match the look of the current truss members.  Possible example/reference would be the truss replacement for the WB I-70/Blanchette Bridge over the Missouri River near St. Louis:
Original truss (https://goo.gl/maps/ZT6oSKF2FfQfnmy37)
New truss (https://goo.gl/maps/H3Fp24JuL2TRzPbL8)

EDIT:
Looking over the volume projections from the early 2019 exhibits, the US 41 crossing is shown to still have 22,500 or 26,400 vehicles per day, depending upon the alternative.  This is probably more than should be on a two lane crossing, and high enough I could see some nasty head on crashes popping up.  Could be even more issues since neither US 41 bridge has shoulders.  Wondering if this could become a potential liability issue for Kentucky?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on March 01, 2020, 02:31:27 PM
I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49605231928_7a7a9b7126_z.jpg)


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49605217533_9cdc880079_z.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on March 01, 2020, 02:57:13 PM
I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

Even a 7.0 or so quake would probably damage those bridges enough to shut them down at least for awhile, let alone a 8.0 New Madrid type event.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on March 01, 2020, 03:03:41 PM
I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

Even a 7.0 or so quake would probably damage those bridges enough to shut them down at least for awhile, let alone a 8.0 New Madrid type event.
I have a feeling there will be many troubled bridges across SE MO, W KY, SoIL, SW IN, NE AR, etc when the next major New Madrid Quake hits

Hopefully I am wrong, tho
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on March 01, 2020, 09:47:44 PM
I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

Even a 7.0 or so quake would probably damage those bridges enough to shut them down at least for awhile, let alone a 8.0 New Madrid type event.
I have a feeling there will be many troubled bridges across SE MO, W KY, SoIL, SW IN, NE AR, etc when the next major New Madrid Quake hits

Hopefully I am wrong, tho

By "New Madrid event", I wasn't thinking a big one necessarily like 1792, more like between a 4 and 6. I agree an 8 would have more issues in the region than just bridges.  Something that would wobble them off their stands. And being so close together, its possible one would topple on the other one. These weren't designed for a large degree of seismic activity, whereas a new bridge would have more resistance by design.

Deeper footings, flexible cable stayed decks instead of the rigid trusses used on them today.

I guess the point I was making is that keeping just one and not both of the old spans reduces the level of risk when that seismic event takes place.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mrose on March 02, 2020, 12:17:46 AM
I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on March 02, 2020, 12:25:49 AM
I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.
I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Verlanka on March 02, 2020, 05:10:42 AM
By "New Madrid event", I wasn't thinking a big one necessarily like 1812
FIFY
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on March 02, 2020, 09:55:46 AM
Besides the seismic shaking, the ground could very well liquefy, causing the piers and foundations to simply give way or sink.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on March 02, 2020, 04:09:10 PM
Besides the seismic shaking, the ground could very well liquefy, causing the piers and foundations to simply give way or sink.

Yes, this is what happened in eastern Arkansas in *1812* (thanks @Verlanka). Hence the St Francis "Sunken Lands" NWA.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mrose on March 03, 2020, 09:50:53 AM
I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.
I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

Yes, the two US 60 bridges.

I know one is supposed to be replaced soon though.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:52:32 PM
I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.
I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

Yes, the two US 60 bridges.

I know one is supposed to be replaced soon though.

There are preliminary discussions on replacing the Ohio River bridge, although I'm not sure which state is taking the lead.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on March 03, 2020, 03:45:55 PM
I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.
I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

Yes, the two US 60 bridges.

I know one is supposed to be replaced soon though.

There are preliminary discussions on replacing the Ohio River bridge, although I'm not sure which state is taking the lead.

KDOT is the lead agency to replace the Cairo Bridge.  IDOT has provided their funding in their budgets.  It's currently in EIS and engineering.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on May 14, 2020, 10:15:12 PM
A little tidbit on progress on the new crossing:

https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/plans-moving-forward-for-ohio-river-bridge/

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on May 15, 2020, 03:19:55 PM
Posting the map from that video...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/updated-maps/deis-maps/

(https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CENTRAL-ALTERNATIVES-1A-AND-1B-%E2%80%93-Preferred-Alternative-web.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on May 15, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Thanks!  Most legible & straightforward map of the project I've seen to date!  I take it the double white lines over the swampy area north of the main span indicate an additional bridge structure as well.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on May 15, 2020, 08:07:48 PM
I still don't get that giant loop from Veterans Memorial Parkway to I-69 north. Considering the stoplights along the Lloyd Expressway I would guess that quite a few people from the Newburgh area use the Veterans and I-69 routing to get home every day from Downtown Evansville. This project would ensure that they must do some giant loop because we can't design the interchange any better?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on May 15, 2020, 08:51:48 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Thanks!  Most legible & straightforward map of the project I've seen to date!  I take it the double white lines over the swampy area north of the main span indicate an additional bridge structure as well.
Correct, most of the terrain on the Indiana approach would be too marshy to fill in and has to be bridged over.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on May 15, 2020, 08:52:36 PM
I still don't get that giant loop from Veterans Memorial Parkway to I-69 north. Considering the stoplights along the Lloyd Expressway I would guess that quite a few people from the Newburgh area use the Veterans and I-69 routing to get home every day from Downtown Evansville. This project would ensure that they must do some giant loop because we can't design the interchange any better?
Likely wetland issues including with Eagle Creek.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on May 15, 2020, 08:55:22 PM
Posting the map from that video...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/updated-maps/deis-maps/
Have they made a decision regarding tolling? Will the existing US-41 bridge continue to be toll-free or would it be tolled under the current plan? Will the new segment of I-69 between the Parkway and US-60 interchange will be apart of the toll, or does the toll only apply to people crossing the new bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on May 15, 2020, 09:16:37 PM
IMO they should put US 41 back on its old alignment.  It currently makes a needless jog for no reason.  Google never even acknowledged the change.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on May 15, 2020, 10:50:18 PM
I still don't get that giant loop from Veterans Memorial Parkway to I-69 north. Considering the stoplights along the Lloyd Expressway I would guess that quite a few people from the Newburgh area use the Veterans and I-69 routing to get home every day from Downtown Evansville. This project would ensure that they must do some giant loop because we can't design the interchange any better?
Likely wetland issues including with Eagle Creek.

Without more data, it looks to me more like a certain DOT is too cheap to go for a three level interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on May 15, 2020, 11:22:56 PM
Posting the map from that video...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/updated-maps/deis-maps/
Have they made a decision regarding tolling? Will the existing US-41 bridge continue to be toll-free or would it be tolled under the current plan? Will the new segment of I-69 between the Parkway and US-60 interchange will be apart of the toll, or does the toll only apply to people crossing the new bridge?

No decision as yet regarding tolling. As is generally known, there are currently two options under consideration: Central Alternative 1A and Central Alternative 1B. The first is to toll both the new I-69 bridge and the remaining US-41 bridge, while the second is to toll only the new I-69 bridge. At this time, there is no timeline when the "single preferred alternative" will be selected, and thus the tolling option. The decision is expected to be included as part of the FEIS. However, due to the COVID-19 situation, the FEIS timeline is currently unclear.

Link: ORX Crossing Central Alternatives 1A and 1B: https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/central-alternative-1-is-the-preferred-route-for-i-69-orx/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on May 21, 2020, 10:05:12 AM
Posting the map from that video...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/updated-maps/deis-maps/
Have they made a decision regarding tolling? Will the existing US-41 bridge continue to be toll-free or would it be tolled under the current plan? Will the new segment of I-69 between the Parkway and US-60 interchange will be apart of the toll, or does the toll only apply to people crossing the new bridge?

No decision as yet regarding tolling. As is generally known, there are currently two options under consideration: Central Alternative 1A and Central Alternative 1B. The first is to toll both the new I-69 bridge and the remaining US-41 bridge, while the second is to toll only the new I-69 bridge. At this time, there is no timeline when the "single preferred alternative" will be selected, and thus the tolling option. The decision is expected to be included as part of the FEIS. However, due to the COVID-19 situation, the FEIS timeline is currently unclear.

Link: ORX Crossing Central Alternatives 1A and 1B: https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/central-alternative-1-is-the-preferred-route-for-i-69-orx/

This is the biggest sticking point to moving forward with the I-69 ORX. There is a lot of local opposition to 1) removing one of the US-41 bridges, and 2) tolling the remaining US-41 bridge. Officials has argued it wouldn't be financially viable to keep both US-41 bridges with or without tolling.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 05, 2020, 09:35:30 PM
I'll accept tolls for a less-shitty interchange with the existing freeway on the Indiana side.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: compdude787 on June 09, 2020, 02:32:17 AM
I'll accept tolls for a less-shitty interchange with the existing freeway on the Indiana side.

I'm amazed they didn't make a directional-T interchange. Would have been worth the extra expense.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 09, 2020, 09:46:49 AM
I'll accept tolls for a less-shitty interchange with the existing freeway on the Indiana side.

I'm amazed they didn't make a directional-T interchange. Would have been worth the extra expense.

When INDOT built I-164 some 30 years ago, they probably weren't thinking that it would become part of the I-69 extension. At the time a cloverleaf interchange with US-41 and Veterans Boulevard made sense, as I-164 was to end there with no continuation or extension of the freeway planned.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: royo6022 on June 09, 2020, 03:35:40 PM
Yeah you can tell by the way it curves up into the city instead of cutting through the side and shooting down toward the river again, it's almost inconvenient to use the southern half of it unless you're leaving the city entirely
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on June 09, 2020, 04:30:31 PM
Yeah you can tell by the way it curves up into the city instead of cutting through the side and shooting down toward the river again, it's almost inconvenient to use the southern half of it unless you're leaving the city entirely
Why would Local Traffic use the Bypass when there is the Lloyd? Sure it is not fully grade separated but it's a solid route for in-town Evansville E-W traffic
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 10, 2020, 11:25:29 AM
When I-164 was designed, it was to take N/S passthrough traffic on US-41 out of central Evansville.

Specifically hazmat materials traveling by truck.

Even today the City of Evansville has a stringent hazmat law that even railroads are required to follow.

I know a retired CSX dispatcher who used to get into big arguments with the dispatchers in Chicago because they kept trying to send HC down through Evansville.

The cars had to be set aside at the yard north of town for a northbound to pick them up to be switched out at Terre Haute so they could route through Cincy.

It was a real pain.





Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 10, 2020, 02:02:24 PM
When I-164 was designed, it was to take N/S passthrough traffic on US-41 out of central Evansville.

Specifically hazmat materials traveling by truck.

Even today the City of Evansville has a stringent hazmat law that even railroads are required to follow.

I know a retired CSX dispatcher who used to get into big arguments with the dispatchers in Chicago because they kept trying to send HC down through Evansville.

The cars had to be set aside at the yard north of town for a northbound to pick them up to be switched out at Terre Haute so they could route through Cincy.

It was a real pain.

That's interesting. I didn't realize that local governments could regulate railroads. We had a court case here in Kentucky were local law enforcement officers were citing railroads for blocking crossings for more than a minimum period of time. Those citations got thrown out because the railroads are federally regulated and it was ruled that local agencies didn't have the authority. The case involved Norfolk Southern and, I think, Pulaski County.

Addendum: Yep, Pulaski and McCreary counties. Story at https://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/federal-judge-sides-with-railroads-in-case-of-trains-blocking-road-crossings/article_6e7e446a-43a8-11ea-a6c0-631dbf777ee8.html. Additional info and background at http://tinyurl.com/y92jvctq.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: civeng on June 10, 2020, 02:32:34 PM
Why would Local Traffic use the Bypass when there is the Lloyd? Sure it is not fully grade separated but it's a solid route for in-town Evansville E-W traffic

Many headed between downtown and the far east side or Newburgh use the bypass, especially when the Lloyd is congested during rush hours.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 11, 2020, 10:00:30 AM
When I-164 was designed, it was to take N/S passthrough traffic on US-41 out of central Evansville.

Specifically hazmat materials traveling by truck.

Even today the City of Evansville has a stringent hazmat law that even railroads are required to follow.

I know a retired CSX dispatcher who used to get into big arguments with the dispatchers in Chicago because they kept trying to send HC down through Evansville.

The cars had to be set aside at the yard north of town for a northbound to pick them up to be switched out at Terre Haute so they could route through Cincy.

It was a real pain.

That's interesting. I didn't realize that local governments could regulate railroads. We had a court case here in Kentucky were local law enforcement officers were citing railroads for blocking crossings for more than a minimum period of time. Those citations got thrown out because the railroads are federally regulated and it was ruled that local agencies didn't have the authority. The case involved Norfolk Southern and, I think, Pulaski County.

Addendum: Yep, Pulaski and McCreary counties. Story at https://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/federal-judge-sides-with-railroads-in-case-of-trains-blocking-road-crossings/article_6e7e446a-43a8-11ea-a6c0-631dbf777ee8.html. Additional info and background at http://tinyurl.com/y92jvctq.

I agree. The argument on the west coast on where oil or coal can be transported is a classic case of STB overruling local authority.

He is quite old now, but if I run into that dispatcher again I will ask him about that. It might have been for other issues, he told me no HC could go through Evansville.

There may have been other reasons, like the bridge over the Ohio, neighborhoods the ROW ran through, an agreement between the City and the predecessor railroad due to an accident in some ancient past that was grandfathered forward.

Today most of the HC related plants are in Mt Vernon to the west or over in Newburgh to the east.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on June 11, 2020, 11:06:29 AM
Received an email from the project site. Of interest to me was the end of the email.

Quote
The I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) project offices are consolidating to a single location in Henderson. Both offices have been closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Evansville office will not reopen. When conditions allow, the Henderson office will reopen by appointment only. No date has been set.

The Project Team is continuing its work, and Indiana and Kentucky are committed to the project, an important final piece of the I-69 improvements in both states.

Residents can continue to share their comments and questions by phone, email and mail. The email address is info@I69OhioRiverCrossing.com and the project phone number is (888) 515-9756. Mail can continue to be directed to the Henderson project office: 1970 Barrett Ct., Suite 100, Henderson, KY 42420.

The Project Team continues to work toward the selection of a preferred alternative and the development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) and expects to publish the FEIS later this year or in early 2021. When the FEIS is published, open office hours or community meetings will be scheduled in both Evansville and Henderson.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mrsman on June 12, 2020, 05:43:06 PM
I'm sorry if this was addressed upthread, but is there a reason why the US 41 bridge will be demoted from 4 lane to 2 lane for this project?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: zzcarp on June 12, 2020, 06:30:17 PM
I'm sorry if this was addressed upthread, but is there a reason why the US 41 bridge will be demoted from 4 lane to 2 lane for this project?

From their FAQ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/general-faqs/questions-us-41/):

Quote
Why is the future of the US 41 bridges being discussed as part of this project?
Improving long-term cross-river mobility between Evansville and Henderson must include a discussion of the US 41 bridges. One bridge is more than 80 years old and the other is more than 50 years old, and maintenance costs are high. Indiana and Kentucky have spent more than $50 million on maintenance costs on the US 41 bridges since 2005. A report on the US 41 bridges finds it would cost an estimated $293 million to maintain the two bridges through 2062.

Under Central Alternatives 1A or 1B, which US 41 bridge would remain in service?
Due to its historic significance and serviceable condition, the northbound US 41 will be retained for two-way traffic.

What will happen to the southbound US 41 bridge that is removed from service?
A marketing plan will be undertaken to determine if there is any group or agency that would be willing and able to maintain and preserve the bridge. If there are no such groups or agencies found, the bridge would be demolished after construction of an I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: 2trailertrucker on June 14, 2020, 04:00:34 AM
When I-164 was designed, it was to take N/S passthrough traffic on US-41 out of central Evansville.

Specifically hazmat materials traveling by truck.

Even today the City of Evansville has a stringent hazmat law that even railroads are required to follow.

I know a retired CSX dispatcher who used to get into big arguments with the dispatchers in Chicago because they kept trying to send HC down through Evansville.

The cars had to be set aside at the yard north of town for a northbound to pick them up to be switched out at Terre Haute so they could route through Cincy.

It was a real pain.

That's interesting. I didn't realize that local governments could regulate railroads. We had a court case here in Kentucky were local law enforcement officers were citing railroads for blocking crossings for more than a minimum period of time. Those citations got thrown out because the railroads are federally regulated and it was ruled that local agencies didn't have the authority. The case involved Norfolk Southern and, I think, Pulaski County.

Addendum: Yep, Pulaski and McCreary counties. Story at https://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/federal-judge-sides-with-railroads-in-case-of-trains-blocking-road-crossings/article_6e7e446a-43a8-11ea-a6c0-631dbf777ee8.html. Additional info and background at http://tinyurl.com/y92jvctq.

I agree. The argument on the west coast on where oil or coal can be transported is a classic case of STB overruling local authority.

He is quite old now, but if I run into that dispatcher again I will ask him about that. It might have been for other issues, he told me no HC could go through Evansville.

There may have been other reasons, like the bridge over the Ohio, neighborhoods the ROW ran through, an agreement between the City and the predecessor railroad due to an accident in some ancient past that was grandfathered forward.

Today most of the HC related plants are in Mt Vernon to the west or over in Newburgh to the east.

Trucks going though Evansville  are not prohibited from going through town with hazmat. That being said, the railroad tracks and the stop lights make taking I-69 to I-64 and back to US 41 an alternative.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on June 14, 2020, 01:04:52 PM
Yeah you can tell by the way it curves up into the city instead of cutting through the side and shooting down toward the river again, it's almost inconvenient to use the southern half of it unless you're leaving the city entirely
Why would Local Traffic use the Bypass when there is the Lloyd? Sure it is not fully grade separated but it's a solid route for in-town Evansville E-W traffic

Living in Newburgh, I can tell you just about every trip I take downtown or to points west of downtown Evansville, I take the southern leg of I-69 and Veterans Parkway, even if it is to utilize the Lloyd west of downtown.

The Lloyd between 69 and Vann Avenue can be a complete cluster with all the commercial development and lights. During afternoon rush, you can see a lot of cars backed up on 69 from the eastbound exit ramp to SR-662. A situation that is only to get much worse with the recent "road diet" INDOT put on SR-662. Insanity, but deserves its own thread.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: JMoses24 on June 28, 2020, 02:11:11 PM
When I-164 was designed, it was to take N/S passthrough traffic on US-41 out of central Evansville.

Specifically hazmat materials traveling by truck.

Even today the City of Evansville has a stringent hazmat law that even railroads are required to follow.

I know a retired CSX dispatcher who used to get into big arguments with the dispatchers in Chicago because they kept trying to send HC down through Evansville.

The cars had to be set aside at the yard north of town for a northbound to pick them up to be switched out at Terre Haute so they could route through Cincy.

It was a real pain.

That's interesting. I didn't realize that local governments could regulate railroads. We had a court case here in Kentucky were local law enforcement officers were citing railroads for blocking crossings for more than a minimum period of time. Those citations got thrown out because the railroads are federally regulated and it was ruled that local agencies didn't have the authority. The case involved Norfolk Southern and, I think, Pulaski County.

Addendum: Yep, Pulaski and McCreary counties. Story at https://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/federal-judge-sides-with-railroads-in-case-of-trains-blocking-road-crossings/article_6e7e446a-43a8-11ea-a6c0-631dbf777ee8.html. Additional info and background at http://tinyurl.com/y92jvctq.

Same thing happened with Oklahoma. A state law to prohibit trains from blocking railroad crossings has been challenged by the railroads.

https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/lawsuit-challenges-new-oklahoma-law-prohibiting-trains-from-blocking-railroad-crossings (https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/lawsuit-challenges-new-oklahoma-law-prohibiting-trains-from-blocking-railroad-crossings)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Captain Jack on July 01, 2020, 05:07:07 PM
I'm sorry if this was addressed upthread, but is there a reason why the US 41 bridge will be demoted from 4 lane to 2 lane for this project?

From their FAQ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/general-faqs/questions-us-41/):

Quote
Why is the future of the US 41 bridges being discussed as part of this project?
Improving long-term cross-river mobility between Evansville and Henderson must include a discussion of the US 41 bridges. One bridge is more than 80 years old and the other is more than 50 years old, and maintenance costs are high. Indiana and Kentucky have spent more than $50 million on maintenance costs on the US 41 bridges since 2005. A report on the US 41 bridges finds it would cost an estimated $293 million to maintain the two bridges through 2062.

Under Central Alternatives 1A or 1B, which US 41 bridge would remain in service?
Due to its historic significance and serviceable condition, the northbound US 41 will be retained for two-way traffic.

What will happen to the southbound US 41 bridge that is removed from service?
A marketing plan will be undertaken to determine if there is any group or agency that would be willing and able to maintain and preserve the bridge. If there are no such groups or agencies found, the bridge would be demolished after construction of an I-69 bridge.

I love historical significance as much as the next guy, but it makes absolutely no sense to keep the northbound bridge. Not only is the southbound one 30+ years newer, it is noticibly wider.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on July 01, 2020, 10:34:30 PM
^ Plus to most people the design does not differ that much between the NB and SB bridges.  It would be different if the SB bridge was a tied arch instead of a very similar truss design.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on July 01, 2020, 10:51:55 PM
I love historical significance as much as the next guy, but it makes absolutely no sense to keep the northbound bridge. Not only is the southbound one 30+ years newer, it is noticibly wider.

Same here, but in my reading of the DEIS from 2014, the costs of repair and maintenance of the SB bridge have historically been higher than for the NB, and seem likely to remain so.

It is also noteworthy that the NB bridge lasted 50 years before it needed a deck overlay, whereas the SB had to be done in 1979, just 14 years after it was built.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2020, 11:50:11 PM
I love historical significance as much as the next guy, but it makes absolutely no sense to keep the northbound bridge. Not only is the southbound one 30+ years newer, it is noticibly wider.

Same here, but in my reading of the DEIS from 2014, the costs of repair and maintenance of the SB bridge have historically been higher than for the NB, and seem likely to remain so.

It is also noteworthy that the NB bridge lasted 50 years before it needed a deck overlay, whereas the SB had to be done in 1979, just 14 years after it was built.
Older design, but higher quality it appears.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on July 02, 2020, 08:53:22 PM
About time we got a definitive alignment for the bridge! I imagine a cable-stayed design will be used here; it would be nice if they made that (like they did for I-65 in Louisville and I-70 in St. Louis).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on July 03, 2020, 12:41:22 PM
About time we got a definitive alignment for the bridge! I imagine a cable-stayed design will be used here; it would be nice if they made that (like they did for I-65 in Louisville and I-70 in St. Louis).

I agree.

DOT's tend to use templates to make the bidding process less complicated and more predictable.  But it also makes for repetitive looking bridges and in one case caused a national crisis in bridge lifespans.

The cable stayed, twin tower approach is popular right now in the midwest and a few other places.

Probably a variation would be the new Quad Cities bridge over the Mississippi. IDOT was the lead I think on that one.

Florida DOT depending on the district can be incredibly innovative or incredibly boring. D1 and D4 tend to be more creative, while D2 prefers bread and butter.

Since KDOT is the lead agency, one would have to take a look at how unique they are. The new span east of Louisville would be a good example.

The "Modjeski" style cantilevers of the 1920-1960 is the most common in the US, which is when a large majority of road bridges were built.

Now we seem to be in a post-Modjeski cable stayed phase of bridge design.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on August 19, 2020, 10:48:27 AM
No new updates but something to look forward to.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/i-69-orx-office-consolidating/
Quote
.....

The Project Team continues to work toward the selection of a preferred alternative and the development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) and expects to publish the FEIS later this year or in early 2021.

When the FEIS is published, open office hours or community meetings will be scheduled in both Evansville and Henderson.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 20, 2021, 01:54:48 PM
Here's a recent article with updates on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  Nothing really earth-shattering, but a couple of highlights:

)

https://www.14news.com/2021/01/20/gov-holcomb-announces-next-steps-i-ohio-river-crossing/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on January 26, 2021, 02:56:48 AM
Here's a recent article with updates on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  Nothing really earth-shattering, but a couple of highlights:

  • INDOT and KYTC have identified their Preferred Alternative that will go into the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
    The Preferred Alternative has a 4-lane toll bridge for I-69.
    The US-41 bridges will be reduced from two to one, which will be toll-free.
    The FEIS and Record of Decision are expected in 2021.
    Construction may begin in 2024, after I-69 has been connected to I-465 in Indianapolis. (Previously, officials in Kentucky have appropriated funds to construct a section of I-69 between US-41/KY-425 and US-60, which may start in 2022.
)

https://www.14news.com/2021/01/20/gov-holcomb-announces-next-steps-i-ohio-river-crossing/


With a project that not only involves 2 states, but also identification of whatever level of federal input it'll require to get the project -- including the approaches and interchanges -- moving, 2024 seems like an optimistic startup time, even if that is only for the KY non-bridge mileage.  I wouldn't expect the facility to be an integral part of I-69 until at least 2030.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 12:43:19 PM
Here's a recent article with updates on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  Nothing really earth-shattering, but a couple of highlights:

  • INDOT and KYTC have identified their Preferred Alternative that will go into the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
    The Preferred Alternative has a 4-lane toll bridge for I-69.
    The US-41 bridges will be reduced from two to one, which will be toll-free.
    The FEIS and Record of Decision are expected in 2021.
    Construction may begin in 2024, after I-69 has been connected to I-465 in Indianapolis. (Previously, officials in Kentucky have appropriated funds to construct a section of I-69 between US-41/KY-425 and US-60, which may start in 2022.
)

https://www.14news.com/2021/01/20/gov-holcomb-announces-next-steps-i-ohio-river-crossing/


With a project that not only involves 2 states, but also identification of whatever level of federal input it'll require to get the project -- including the approaches and interchanges -- moving, 2024 seems like an optimistic startup time, even if that is only for the KY non-bridge mileage.  I wouldn't expect the facility to be an integral part of I-69 until at least 2030.   

Additional traffic generated as sections of I-69 open to the north and south of the Ohio River will put pressure on both Indiana and Kentucky to get the ORX built sooner rather than later. I anticipate you'll see a significant boost in the amount of traffic using I-69 around Evansville (and the US-41 bridges) once the final connection to I-465 is made. By mid-decade we'll be very close to having a non-stop freeway from the Canadian border in Michigan to at least Dyersburg, Tennessee, leaving the ORX as the missing link. I think the demand signal will be there to compel both states to get the bridge funded and done.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 01:24:36 PM
The Preferred Alternative has a 4-lane toll bridge for I-69.
The US-41 bridges will be reduced from two to one, which will be toll-free.
I thought Kentucky is pretty much against for any more toll bridges in the state, at least that's what they said for the Brent Spence Bridge twinning in Cincy

Speaking of the Brent Spence Bridge, would be interesting to see which one actually gets finished first, it or the I-69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 26, 2021, 02:38:27 PM
The Preferred Alternative has a 4-lane toll bridge for I-69.
The US-41 bridges will be reduced from two to one, which will be toll-free.
I thought Kentucky is pretty much against for any more toll bridges in the state, at least that's what they said for the Brent Spence Bridge twinning in Cincy

Speaking of the Brent Spence Bridge, would be interesting to see which one actually gets finished first, it or the I-69 bridge.

It's local pressure, especially from the Kentucky side of the river, that is the loudest anti-tolling voice concerning the Brent Spence. I get the feeling that the people of Henderson and Evansville don't really care about tolls on the I-69 bridge, especially since most traffic between those two downtowns is going to use the US 41 crossing anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 03:35:41 PM
The Preferred Alternative has a 4-lane toll bridge for I-69.
The US-41 bridges will be reduced from two to one, which will be toll-free.
I thought Kentucky is pretty much against for any more toll bridges in the state, at least that's what they said for the Brent Spence Bridge twinning in Cincy

Speaking of the Brent Spence Bridge, would be interesting to see which one actually gets finished first, it or the I-69 bridge.

What works against the Brent Spence expansion getting finished first are threefold: 1) the shear cost (north of $2 billion), 2) a lot of community opposition to the expansion, especially when tolls are considered, and 3) there are plenty of alternate routs to avoid the Brent Spence during peak travel times.

The opposite factors work in favor of getting the I-69 bridge built first: 1) a lower cost, but still expensive ($1.1 billion); 2) greater community support from both sides of the river (as long as tolls are applied to the I-69 bridge only and not the US-41 bridge(s)), and 3) no practicable alternative routes to avoid the existing US-41 bridges.

Now I would agree if they start building the I-69 ORX mid-decade that we would be approaching 2030 by the time it's fully completed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on January 26, 2021, 09:20:10 PM
Here's a recent article with updates on the I-69 Ohio River Bridge.  Nothing really earth-shattering, but a couple of highlights:

  • INDOT and KYTC have identified their Preferred Alternative that will go into the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
    The Preferred Alternative has a 4-lane toll bridge for I-69.
    The US-41 bridges will be reduced from two to one, which will be toll-free.
    The FEIS and Record of Decision are expected in 2021.
    Construction may begin in 2024, after I-69 has been connected to I-465 in Indianapolis. (Previously, officials in Kentucky have appropriated funds to construct a section of I-69 between US-41/KY-425 and US-60, which may start in 2022.
)

https://www.14news.com/2021/01/20/gov-holcomb-announces-next-steps-i-ohio-river-crossing/

The Clark Bridge in Downtown Louisville is older than the oldest US 41 bridge and handles over 30,000 vehicles/day so 1 bridge should be plenty between the cities after !-69 is built.

There has not been a decision made on whether the US 41 bridge will be tolled or not.

You cannot finance a $1 Billion bridge with 10,000 vehicles a day paying a $15 toll.  You think 10,000 is too low?

Remember you can go from Memphis Airport to Indy Airport in about 7 hours right now toll free via I-55/57/70

Right now it takes about 7.5 hours via "I-69," completing Martinsville and Henderson may save 15 minutes. There are no plans to upgrade from Dyersburg and Memphis. So I don't see a surge of traffic on I-69.

Right now there is about 12,000 vehicles/day south of Henderson and about 8,000 north of Evansville (near Petersburg). 40,000 cross the twin bridges (4,000 are trucks). Will ALL trucks and 1/6 of all cars divert from US 41 at $10-$15 dollars to cross? Maybe and that gets you 10,000 vehicles.

I expect that there will have to be a small toll on the US 41 bridge in order to pay for the I-69 bridge.

Gary Valentine of KYTC, said as much at an I-69 meeting in Madisonville years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on January 26, 2021, 09:55:49 PM
Speaking of the Brent Spence Bridge, would be interesting to see which one actually gets finished first, it or the I-69 bridge.

Probably the latter. I fear it it will take an I-35W situation to get anything going on the Brent Spence.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 27, 2021, 01:49:18 PM
Speaking of the Brent Spence Bridge, would be interesting to see which one actually gets finished first, it or the I-69 bridge.

Probably the latter. I fear it it will take an I-35W situation to get anything going on the Brent Spence.

The Brent Spence's issues are capacity issues, not structural issues. The structural integrity of the span is fine. It's not in any danger of falling into the river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-39 on January 27, 2021, 03:27:11 PM
Speaking of the Brent Spence Bridge, would be interesting to see which one actually gets finished first, it or the I-69 bridge.

Probably the latter. I fear it it will take an I-35W situation to get anything going on the Brent Spence.

The Brent Spence's issues are capacity issues, not structural issues. The structural integrity of the span is fine. It's not in any danger of falling into the river.

So when will the existing Brent Spence bridge be due for replacement?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on January 27, 2021, 03:54:12 PM
It's not up for replacement, but most bridges of that type are replaced in the 80-100 year timeframe. With proper maintenance, it could last longer than that. It might be in the 2050 range before serious studies are conducted on its replacement.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 27, 2021, 05:12:58 PM
It's not up for replacement, but most bridges of that type are replaced in the 80-100 year timeframe. With proper maintenance, it could last longer than that. It might be in the 2050 range before serious studies are conducted on its replacement.

The Brent Spence expansion would be similar to what was recently done with the Kennedy Bridge that carries I-65 over the Ohio River in Louisville. A new bridge would be built that would eventually carry traffic in one direction. Once the new bridge is finished, traffic would be shifted to it, and the Brent Spence would be rehabilitated. After the existing bridge is refurbished, it would carry I-75 traffic in one direction with added lanes, while the new span would carry traffic in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on January 28, 2021, 12:33:21 AM
So when will the existing Brent Spence bridge be due for replacement?
Think what they're trying to do is construct a twin span for the Brent Spence for I-75 traffic, and leave the current bridge for I-71 traffic. This will eliminate the concurrency of I-75 and I-71 in Ohio. There has been a couple of bridge designs floating around on the internet, the one that is my favorite is the cabled stayed one, which happens to be my favorite bridge type too.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 28, 2021, 12:56:48 PM
So when will the existing Brent Spence bridge be due for replacement?
Think what they're trying to do is construct a twin span for the Brent Spence for I-75 traffic, and leave the current bridge for I-71 traffic. This will eliminate the concurrency of I-75 and I-71 in Ohio. There has been a couple of bridge designs floating around on the internet, the one that is my favorite is the cabled stayed one, which happens to be my favorite bridge type too.

I've seen several variants of what's proposed, and what routes would be split. One idea I saw floated was that the existing bridge would be converted to northbound only, with one deck for I-71 and the other for I-75. The split would occur in Kentucky. The new bridge would carry all southbound traffic for both lanes, and the southbound convergence would take place in Ohio.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2021, 03:17:06 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is opened, the US 41 designation won't be shifted to the Interstate 69 route on both ends, will it? I would find such a rerouting of 41 to be convoluted.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on February 08, 2021, 03:27:23 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is opened, the US 41 designation won't be shifted to the Interstate 69 route on both ends, will it? I would find such a rerouting of 41 to be convoluted.

Chances are it won't -- at least in IN.  INDOT resisted the temptation to reroute US 41 over former I-164 for 30+ years; if US 41 continues to use the remaining extant Ohio River bridge, it'll probably retain its current path northward out of Evansville.  A continuous and signed US 41 as an alternative to the tolled new I-69 bridge is likely one of the salient points of the entire project by providing local traffic a familiar and free facility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 08, 2021, 03:53:57 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is opened, the US 41 designation won't be shifted to the Interstate 69 route on both ends, will it? I would find such a rerouting of 41 to be convoluted.

Chances are it won't -- at least in IN.  INDOT resisted the temptation to reroute US 41 over former I-164 for 30+ years; if US 41 continues to use the remaining extant Ohio River bridge, it'll probably retain its current path northward out of Evansville.  A continuous and signed US 41 as an alternative to the tolled new I-69 bridge is likely one of the salient points of the entire project by providing local traffic a familiar and free facility.

 :-D a temptation I'm shocked they have resisted. 41 will stay on the existing bridge, kentucky has control since the bridge isnt even in indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on February 09, 2021, 04:06:53 AM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is opened, the US 41 designation won't be shifted to the Interstate 69 route on both ends, will it? I would find such a rerouting of 41 to be convoluted.

Chances are it won't -- at least in IN.  INDOT resisted the temptation to reroute US 41 over former I-164 for 30+ years; if US 41 continues to use the remaining extant Ohio River bridge, it'll probably retain its current path northward out of Evansville.  A continuous and signed US 41 as an alternative to the tolled new I-69 bridge is likely one of the salient points of the entire project by providing local traffic a familiar and free facility.

 :-D a temptation I'm shocked they have resisted. 41 will stay on the existing bridge, kentucky has control since the bridge isnt even in indiana.

Something of a purely technical point stemming from the fact that the state line doesn't necessarily follow the river; in this instance it's a bit north.  But regardless of geographic jurisdiction,  IN is going to cough up more than a few bucks for their share of the project; even though KDOT is the lead agency of record. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 09, 2021, 09:51:32 AM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is opened, the US 41 designation won't be shifted to the Interstate 69 route on both ends, will it? I would find such a rerouting of 41 to be convoluted.

Chances are it won't -- at least in IN.  INDOT resisted the temptation to reroute US 41 over former I-164 for 30+ years; if US 41 continues to use the remaining extant Ohio River bridge, it'll probably retain its current path northward out of Evansville.  A continuous and signed US 41 as an alternative to the tolled new I-69 bridge is likely one of the salient points of the entire project by providing local traffic a familiar and free facility.

 :-D a temptation I'm shocked they have resisted. 41 will stay on the existing bridge, kentucky has control since the bridge isnt even in indiana.

Something of a purely technical point stemming from the fact that the state line doesn't necessarily follow the river; in this instance it's a bit north.  But regardless of geographic jurisdiction,  IN is going to cough up more than a few bucks for their share of the project; even though KDOT is the lead agency of record.

That's because the state line was demarcated where the river was located some 200 years ago when Indiana and Kentucky became states. Since that time, the main channel of the Ohio River has shifted multiple times, but the state line was never adjusted to account for those changes.

Now with respect to moving the designation of US-41 from the existing bridges to the I-69 bridge, it would take both Indiana and Kentucky to agree on that. While both the I-69 bridge and the US-41 bridges will lie completely within Kentucky, the nearest road connection north of the Ohio River is in Indiana. If for example, Kentucky were to unilaterally shift the US-41 designation to the I-69 bridge without any action on the part of Indiana, you'd end up with a situation where there would be a disconnect. Coming up from the south, US-41 would follow I-69, and then abruptly end at the Indiana state line. Coming down from the north, US-41 would follow its existing alignment to the state line, and then end. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on February 09, 2021, 05:02:36 PM
If for example, Kentucky were to unilaterally shift the US-41 designation to the I-69 bridge without any action on the part of Indiana, you'd end up with a situation where there would be a disconnect. Coming up from the south, US-41 would follow I-69, and then abruptly end at the Indiana state line. Coming down from the north, US-41 would follow its existing alignment to the state line, and then end.

That situation actually happened for awhile when North Carolina finished its section of I-26. Before that, the US 23 freeway ended at the state line and continued south into North Carolina as a surface route. When the freeway was finished and the I-26 designation was applied, it took North Carolina awhile to route US 23 onto the freeway. So you had a situation where US 23 continued north from Mars Hill on the old route and disappeared at the state line (the old route continues into Tennessee as a county road). Similarly, US 23 southbound disappeared and you had to take the Wolf Laurel exit to get back on it. It was originally signed "To US 23" but later, that connector and the old alignment of US 23 was signed as US 23A.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SSR_317 on March 07, 2021, 07:00:59 PM
Also interesting to note, the state line does not follow the MIDDLE of the river, as is does in many river-border situations, but is at the North Bank (as it was back when IN became a state in 1816). I believe that is the case with KY's border with OH and IL as well. Because KY was a state before their neighbors to the north, they claimed the ENTIRE River (greedy bastards!  :pan: ) as it existed back then. As noted by abqtraveler above, the river has shifted course in several places since those times. Ellis Park (Horse) Racing & Gaming actually lies north of the Ohio River, along the east side of US 41, but is nonetheless still in the Bluegrass State. So the entire I-69 bridge will be in KY, with the IN approach sited north of Waterworks Road (which approximates the border in this area).

BTW, further to the east there exists a point where you can actually stand in Indiana and look due north into Kentucky!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on March 08, 2021, 10:11:21 AM
Also interesting to note, the state line does not follow the MIDDLE of the river, as is does in many river-border situations, but is at the North Bank (as it was back when IN became a state in 1816). I believe that is the case with KY's border with OH and IL as well. Because KY was a state before their neighbors to the north, they claimed the ENTIRE River (greedy bastards!  :pan: ) as it existed back then. As noted by abqtraveler above, the river has shifted course in several places since those times. Ellis Park (Horse) Racing & Gaming actually lies north of the Ohio River, along the east side of US 41, but is nonetheless still in the Bluegrass State. So the entire I-69 bridge will be in KY, with the IN approach sited north of Waterworks Road (which approximates the border in this area).

BTW, further to the east there exists a point where you can actually stand in Indiana and look due north into Kentucky!

It's a similar situation to the border between New Hampshire and Vermont, where the actual border between those two states lies along the west bank of the Connecticut River, not in the middle of the river.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 01:28:30 PM
I have never encountered problems crossing over on US 41.  Can they not just add another segment like the way it is now?  No need for another set of bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on March 08, 2021, 02:30:00 PM
I have never encountered problems crossing over on US 41.  Can they not just add another segment like the way it is now?  No need for another set of bridges.
it's the age of the bridges that is a concern.  The newest of the bridges is over 50 years old, and the other is about 80.  They also were not built with current earthquake protocols.  If we have one of the "big ones", those bridges are most likely doomed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on March 08, 2021, 03:05:29 PM
I am still surprised at the decision to keep the nearly 90-year-old bridge over the 55-year-old one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 08, 2021, 04:30:09 PM
I am still surprised at the decision to keep the nearly 90-year-old bridge over the 55-year-old one.

both bridges will stay, one will be turned into a ped bridge though. also they need to keep 1 bridge for 41 because they need a free alt. I think that's a requirement.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on March 08, 2021, 04:46:37 PM
I lived in Evansville for many years in my youth.  Without knowing the details of the study or the reasoning behind the decision, I can speculate on 2 reasons that the original bridge (NB) was kept for vehicular traffic.  The first reason the old bridge was likely selected is because it is wider than the SB bridge.  I think that bridge was originally operated with 3 lanes (although those lanes would had been narrow), although that was before my time, having been born in '56.  The other reason is that I think there are utilities on the original bridge, and probably not on the SB bridge that was opened in 1966.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 08, 2021, 06:43:33 PM
I have never encountered problems crossing over on US 41.  Can they not just add another segment like the way it is now?  No need for another set of bridges.
it's the age of the bridges that is a concern.  The newest of the bridges is over 50 years old, and the other is about 80.  They also were not built with current earthquake protocols.  If we have one of the "big ones", those bridges are most likely doomed.
There are no plans to retrofit and rehabilitate these old bridges?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2021, 12:23:34 AM
I have never encountered problems crossing over on US 41.  Can they not just add another segment like the way it is now?  No need for another set of bridges.
it's the age of the bridges that is a concern.  The newest of the bridges is over 50 years old, and the other is about 80.  They also were not built with current earthquake protocols.  If we have one of the "big ones", those bridges are most likely doomed.
There are no plans to retrofit and rehabilitate these old bridges?

Both bridges are too narrow to meet interstate standards: they lack shoulders and the lane widths on the 1932 bridge are less than the standard 12 feet required for interstate designation. Because both spans are cantilever truss designs with the roadway going through the trusses, simply widening the bridge deck is not an option. Both spans would have to be completely demolished and rebuilt to accommodate roadways that meet interstate standards.

The preferred option being written into the I-69 ORX Environmental Impact Statement is to build a new toll bridge for I-69 about 3 miles east of the US-41 bridges. After the I-69 bridge opens, the 1965 (southbound) span of the US-41 bridges would be closed and demolished. The 1932 (northbound) span would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to carry two lanes of US-41 for local traffic between Henderson and Evansville--toll free.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2021, 02:29:42 AM
I understand they can’t be used for the I-69 bridges but I meant once the new tolled bridges are built will the state not rehab and retrofit the older ones to be safe and reliable?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 09, 2021, 07:12:34 AM
I am still surprised at the decision to keep the nearly 90-year-old bridge over the 55-year-old one.

I think it is simply that the 90 year old bridge was built better and is in better condition than it's newer twin.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Georgia on March 09, 2021, 08:25:04 AM
They are keeping the one that they feel is presumably cheaper/easier to maintain and Avalanchez, if you have never had a problem crossing those bridges, you havent been on them much.  Even just going back up to east central Illinois once to 3 times a year, i have had to wait on the Henderson side or on the approaches at least a half dozen times in 10 years.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2021, 08:56:36 AM
I have never encountered problems crossing over on US 41.  Can they not just add another segment like the way it is now?  No need for another set of bridges.


I think it’s what is on the south side of the bridges as well. Too much development for upgrade to freeway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2021, 09:01:27 AM
I am still surprised at the decision to keep the nearly 90-year-old bridge over the 55-year-old one.

I think it is simply that the 90 year old bridge was built better and is in better condition than it's newer twin.

Also, the 1932 bridge is considered "historical" whereas the 1965 span is not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 09, 2021, 01:45:52 PM
If I was in charge, both bridges would be kept in use until one of them became in need of costly and substantive maintenance, such as painting or a complete redecking. Then I would close that bridge but leave it standing as a pedestrian walkway. I would keep the southbound bridge open to traffic, as it has wider lanes. I've driven both of them a few times.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 09, 2021, 01:51:23 PM
What pedestrian traffic?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on March 09, 2021, 02:26:56 PM
I think they dropped the ped bridge idea. that was the original plan for the other bridge. maybe the cost caused them to change.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: BrianP on March 09, 2021, 05:50:24 PM
The preferred option being written into the I-69 ORX Environmental Impact Statement is to build a new toll bridge for I-69 about 3 miles east of the US-41 bridges. After the I-69 bridge opens, the 1965 (southbound) span of the US-41 bridges would be closed and demolished. The 1932 (northbound) span would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to carry two lanes of US-41 for local traffic between Henderson and Evansville--toll free.
I'm no engineer but I'd guess that the southbound bridge will be demolished because it uses eyebar joints which the northbound bridge does not.

For an example see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.90451,-87.5513362,3a,15y,140.66h,113.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.38213%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).

Quote
Since  the  collapse  of  the  Silver  Bridge,  there  has  been  considerable  public  and  professional   concern   over   the   safety   of   existing   bridges,   especially   those   containing  eyebars.    Many  of  these  structures  have  been  inspected  and  analyzed  (see  Figure  8.7.6).    As  a  result,  costly  structural  modifications  and  retrofits were  made  to  many  of  these  bridges  (see  Figure  8.7.7),  while  some  others  have  been  demolished.    Eyebars  are  rarely  used  in  new  bridge  designs  but  are  present  on  many existing bridges.

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Structures/bridge%20operations%20and%20maintenance/Bridge%20Inspectors%20Reference%20Manual/Section8b-%20Inspection%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Common%20Steel%20Superstructures.pdf

So the northbound bridge uses a safer design. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2021, 06:59:15 PM
What pedestrian traffic?
A trail between Evensberg and Henderson would be a great asset for the area and a dedicated pedestrian/bike bridge over the river should be part of it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on March 10, 2021, 01:06:44 PM
What pedestrian traffic?
A trail between Evensberg and Henderson would be a great asset for the area and a dedicated pedestrian/bike bridge over the river should be part of it.
They actually could incorporate it into the I-69 bridge like they did the I-265 bridge near Louisville.  They have trails going up to it and then away on the other side of the bridge.  That also could link into the trail system that the greater Evansville area has been building.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 10, 2021, 01:35:10 PM
What pedestrian traffic?
A trail between Evensberg and Henderson would be a great asset for the area and a dedicated pedestrian/bike bridge over the river should be part of it.
They actually could incorporate it into the I-69 bridge like they did the I-265 bridge near Louisville.  They have trails going up to it and then away on the other side of the bridge.  That also could link into the trail system that the greater Evansville area has been building.

The existing bridges are adjacent to a Kentucky recreational state park. The new I-69 span would be a couple of miles upstream from there. I'd think a pedestrian walkway over the Ohio River would be well-received, like the Big Four in Louisville or the Purple People in Cincinnati.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 10, 2021, 01:41:38 PM
The preferred option being written into the I-69 ORX Environmental Impact Statement is to build a new toll bridge for I-69 about 3 miles east of the US-41 bridges. After the I-69 bridge opens, the 1965 (southbound) span of the US-41 bridges would be closed and demolished. The 1932 (northbound) span would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to carry two lanes of US-41 for local traffic between Henderson and Evansville--toll free.
I'm no engineer but I'd guess that the southbound bridge will be demolished because it uses eyebar joints which the northbound bridge does not.

For an example see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.90451,-87.5513362,3a,15y,140.66h,113.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.38213%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).

Quote
Since  the  collapse  of  the  Silver  Bridge,  there  has  been  considerable  public  and  professional   concern   over   the   safety   of   existing   bridges,   especially   those   containing  eyebars.    Many  of  these  structures  have  been  inspected  and  analyzed  (see  Figure  8.7.6).    As  a  result,  costly  structural  modifications  and  retrofits were  made  to  many  of  these  bridges  (see  Figure  8.7.7),  while  some  others  have  been  demolished.    Eyebars  are  rarely  used  in  new  bridge  designs  but  are  present  on  many existing bridges.

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Structures/bridge%20operations%20and%20maintenance/Bridge%20Inspectors%20Reference%20Manual/Section8b-%20Inspection%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Common%20Steel%20Superstructures.pdf

So the northbound bridge uses a safer design.

OK, I"m confused now. The image posted here shows the beams on the older bridge. You can tell the 1960s-era bridge by the style of edge rail that's used. That type of edge railing was commonly used by Kentucky when bridges were built in the 60s. The older (northbound) bridge is the one with the design similar to the Silver Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: BrianP on March 10, 2021, 01:58:18 PM
The preferred option being written into the I-69 ORX Environmental Impact Statement is to build a new toll bridge for I-69 about 3 miles east of the US-41 bridges. After the I-69 bridge opens, the 1965 (southbound) span of the US-41 bridges would be closed and demolished. The 1932 (northbound) span would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to carry two lanes of US-41 for local traffic between Henderson and Evansville--toll free.
I'm no engineer but I'd guess that the southbound bridge will be demolished because it uses eyebar joints which the northbound bridge does not.

For an example see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.90451,-87.5513362,3a,15y,140.66h,113.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.38213%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).

Quote
Since  the  collapse  of  the  Silver  Bridge,  there  has  been  considerable  public  and  professional   concern   over   the   safety   of   existing   bridges,   especially   those   containing  eyebars.    Many  of  these  structures  have  been  inspected  and  analyzed  (see  Figure  8.7.6).    As  a  result,  costly  structural  modifications  and  retrofits were  made  to  many  of  these  bridges  (see  Figure  8.7.7),  while  some  others  have  been  demolished.    Eyebars  are  rarely  used  in  new  bridge  designs  but  are  present  on  many existing bridges.

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Structures/bridge%20operations%20and%20maintenance/Bridge%20Inspectors%20Reference%20Manual/Section8b-%20Inspection%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Common%20Steel%20Superstructures.pdf

So the northbound bridge uses a safer design.

OK, I"m confused now. The image posted here shows the beams on the older bridge. You can tell the 1960s-era bridge by the style of edge rail that's used. That type of edge railing was commonly used by Kentucky when bridges were built in the 60s. The older (northbound) bridge is the one with the design similar to the Silver Bridge.
I got my directions mixed.  The northbound bridge has the eyebars. 

But it's unclear which is the older bridge and which is being kept.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on March 10, 2021, 03:12:11 PM
The preferred option being written into the I-69 ORX Environmental Impact Statement is to build a new toll bridge for I-69 about 3 miles east of the US-41 bridges. After the I-69 bridge opens, the 1965 (southbound) span of the US-41 bridges would be closed and demolished. The 1932 (northbound) span would be rehabilitated and reconfigured to carry two lanes of US-41 for local traffic between Henderson and Evansville--toll free.
I'm no engineer but I'd guess that the southbound bridge will be demolished because it uses eyebar joints which the northbound bridge does not.

For an example see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.90451,-87.5513362,3a,15y,140.66h,113.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxxa9yOmdkx5XGVShkzrl2g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D185.38213%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).

Quote
Since  the  collapse  of  the  Silver  Bridge,  there  has  been  considerable  public  and  professional   concern   over   the   safety   of   existing   bridges,   especially   those   containing  eyebars.    Many  of  these  structures  have  been  inspected  and  analyzed  (see  Figure  8.7.6).    As  a  result,  costly  structural  modifications  and  retrofits were  made  to  many  of  these  bridges  (see  Figure  8.7.7),  while  some  others  have  been  demolished.    Eyebars  are  rarely  used  in  new  bridge  designs  but  are  present  on  many existing bridges.

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Structures/bridge%20operations%20and%20maintenance/Bridge%20Inspectors%20Reference%20Manual/Section8b-%20Inspection%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Common%20Steel%20Superstructures.pdf

So the northbound bridge uses a safer design.

OK, I"m confused now. The image posted here shows the beams on the older bridge. You can tell the 1960s-era bridge by the style of edge rail that's used. That type of edge railing was commonly used by Kentucky when bridges were built in the 60s. The older (northbound) bridge is the one with the design similar to the Silver Bridge.
I got my directions mixed.  The northbound bridge has the eyebars. 

But it's unclear which is the older bridge and which is being kept.

Looking at the Street View in Google Maps, I see the northbound bridge has eyebar assemblies near the top of each span. IMO, and given the history of recent bridge disasters, eyebars belong in the same category as pin-and-hanger assemblies.  Don't use them, and if you have eyebars, find a way to get rid of them ASAP.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 15, 2021, 11:35:21 AM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/i-69-ohio-river-crossing-virtual-public-meeting-scheduled/

Quote
A virtual public meeting is scheduled for April 1 to provide an update on the proposed I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX). The meeting is an opportunity to learn more about the preferred alternative, how the Project Team reached its decision, refinements made and next steps for the project.

Central Alternative 1B Modified has been identified as the single preferred alternative. It includes a four-lane I-69 bridge and retains one US 41 bridge for local traffic. Only the I-69 bridge will be tolled. It includes 11.2 miles of new interstate, including 8.4 miles on new terrain and 2.8 miles of upgrades to US 41.

The alignment is unchanged from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published in December 2018. The preferred alternative is “modified”  because additional design work has resulted in modifications to each of the interchanges to improve operations and reduce project costs.

....

Next Steps

The combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) are expected this fall. The Project Team will publish the FEIS identifying the selected alternative and receive a ROD from the Federal Highway Administration. The ROD signifies final approval of the selected alternative. The initial financial plan and project management plan will then be developed. Construction of I-69 ORX Section 1 is expected to begin in 2022.

ORX Sections 1 and 2

I-69 ORX is divided into two sections for construction. The project study area remains the same. I-69 ORX Section 1 focuses on improvements in Henderson and extends from KY 425 to US 60. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is overseeing the project.

I-69 ORX Section 2 is a bistate project between Indiana and Kentucky that will complete the I-69 connection from US 60 in Henderson to I-69 in Evansville. It includes the new 4-lane river crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on March 15, 2021, 01:41:54 PM
Speaking of those US Route 41 bridges, the report on those spans can be found at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/59_Appendix_O-1_US_41_Bridges_Engineering_and_Evaluation_Report.pdf

Interesting tidbit: "The Engineering Report concludes that extending the life of the existing northbound and/or southbound US 41 bridge to 2060 is feasible. The southbound bridge will be 95 years old and the northbound bridge will be 128 years old at that time, but no fatal flaw is identified that would prevent this kind of life extension, assuming the necessary investments in regular maintenance and periodic major rehabilitation are made."

Relating to the eyebars: "The risk of fracture is mitigated somewhat by the parallel nature of the members: eyebars occur in pairs, or in some members as 4 or 6 bars. With regard to the pins, stress demand appears to be fairly low. Continued vigilance in bi-annual fracture critical inspection is assumed. An in-depth inspection of pins, including non-destructive testing, should be performed to confirm no proactive intervention is warranted now or at 2025. This study includes approximately $1M cost (2017 dollars) in anticipation of the need for isolated response to pin and eyebar concerns over the 2025 to 2060-time horizon (see 2045 Major Steel Repair). "
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: andy on April 02, 2021, 12:34:50 AM
A virtual public meeting was held April 1, 2021. Details at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/)
Comments are being accepted until April 16, 2021.

Major take aways;
US 41 will not be tolled, partly to minimize financial impact on Henderson businesses.
The river bridges will be narrowed, eliminating the potential to expand to six lanes.
The Indiana ramps to US 41 have been simplified.
The Kentucky ramps have been modified.
Two phase construction. Starting in 2022, south from US60, through 2025. Then north of US60 from 2025 through 2031.
The timeline is based on funding and may be accelerated if  additional funding is identified.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 02, 2021, 12:07:32 PM
A virtual public meeting was held April 1, 2021. Details at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/)
Comments are being accepted until April 16, 2021.

Major take aways;
US 41 will not be tolled, partly to minimize financial impact on Henderson businesses.
The river bridges will be narrowed, eliminating the potential to expand to six lanes.
The Indiana ramps to US 41 have been simplified.
The Kentucky ramps have been modified.
Two phase construction. Starting in 2022, south from US60, through 2025. Then north of US60 from 2025 through 2031.
The timeline is based on funding and may be accelerated if  additional funding is identified.
I feel that it's a major error to narrow the river bridges.  The cost to make the road wide enough for three lanes is by far the cheapest  during the initial construction.  US41 has a lot of traffic currently, and when I-69 is completed to Indianapolis, that will increase the traffic over the bridge, even though they will have a two lane free option.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on April 02, 2021, 01:53:02 PM
Are there considerations for pedestrians and cyclists on the new bridge? That would be a major omission considering the old bridge that will remain in service cannot handle those at all.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on April 02, 2021, 10:05:56 PM
A virtual public meeting was held April 1, 2021. Details at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/)

The I-69/Veteran's Memorial Pakrway interchange design still seems bad - it would cost that much more to have a three level free-flow design, rather than having a stoplight that will probably become a high accident location?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on April 02, 2021, 11:15:19 PM
A virtual public meeting was held April 1, 2021. Details at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/)
Comments are being accepted until April 16, 2021.

Major take aways;
US 41 will not be tolled, partly to minimize financial impact on Henderson businesses.
The river bridges will be narrowed, eliminating the potential to expand to six lanes.
The Indiana ramps to US 41 have been simplified.
The Kentucky ramps have been modified.
Two phase construction. Starting in 2022, south from US60, through 2025. Then north of US60 from 2025 through 2031.
The timeline is based on funding and may be accelerated if  additional funding is identified.
I feel that it's a major error to narrow the river bridges.  The cost to make the road wide enough for three lanes is by far the cheapest  during the initial construction.  US41 has a lot of traffic currently, and when I-69 is completed to Indianapolis, that will increase the traffic over the bridge, even though they will have a two lane free option.
They’re tolling that bridge anyways so I don’t know why they can’t just build it so it can be expanded in the future if needed. I agree with you that it would be cheaper to do it now.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on April 04, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
Speaking of those US Route 41 bridges, the report on those spans can be found at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/59_Appendix_O-1_US_41_Bridges_Engineering_and_Evaluation_Report.pdf

Interesting tidbit: "The Engineering Report concludes that extending the life of the existing northbound and/or southbound US 41 bridge to 2060 is feasible. The southbound bridge will be 95 years old and the northbound bridge will be 128 years old at that time, but no fatal flaw is identified that would prevent this kind of life extension, assuming the necessary investments in regular maintenance and periodic major rehabilitation are made."

Relating to the eyebars: "The risk of fracture is mitigated somewhat by the parallel nature of the members: eyebars occur in pairs, or in some members as 4 or 6 bars. With regard to the pins, stress demand appears to be fairly low. Continued vigilance in bi-annual fracture critical inspection is assumed. An in-depth inspection of pins, including non-destructive testing, should be performed to confirm no proactive intervention is warranted now or at 2025. This study includes approximately $1M cost (2017 dollars) in anticipation of the need for isolated response to pin and eyebar concerns over the 2025 to 2060-time horizon (see 2045 Major Steel Repair). "

That engineering and evaluation is too high level.

Nothing was mentioned about seismic resiliency. As noted in a previous post, those older bridges rely very heavily on plate bolting to the supporting piers, bolting easily stripped by sway vacilation from a sustained tremblor above 6.0.

The Chester Bridge used a similar design and it toppled over in 1940 due to a derecho that the upper span could not absorb and stripped out the plate bolts. An seismic event would simply bring the sway from underneath instead of over the top.

Same result.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on April 04, 2021, 08:46:43 PM
Not entirely. A determination was made to keep the existing bridge in service because it's still in good, serviceable condition and that it can withstand the low impact of the more routine earthquakes that happen. Of course standards have changed and evolved over time but that doesn't mean that we need to completely rebuild our infrastructure from scratch to accommodate an issue that may not occur for centuries. As it is, there is no funding to replace any of the bridges for US Route 41, and there isn't the political will to route all through traffic over a tolled crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on April 05, 2021, 09:04:00 AM
Not entirely. A determination was made to keep the existing bridge in service because it's still in good, serviceable condition and that it can withstand the low impact of the more routine earthquakes that happen. Of course standards have changed and evolved over time but that doesn't mean that we need to completely rebuild our infrastructure from scratch to accommodate an issue that may not occur for centuries. As it is, there is no funding to replace any of the bridges for US Route 41, and there isn't the political will to route all through traffic over a tolled crossing.

I am not saying the bridges are 100% obsolete, I am pointing out that the long term engineering summary made no mention of the seismic risks of keeping any of the older bridges.

As long as the budget can keep them maintained, keep them going.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2021, 08:58:57 PM
They should leave the existing US 41 bridge as it presently is, or at least add breakdown shoulders on one or both sides of the two traffic lanes. Besides, once the new bridge opens, the existing bridge will likely see less traffic, and that would likely extend the existing bridge's life-span.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on April 06, 2021, 09:54:49 AM
A virtual public meeting was held April 1, 2021. Details at https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/ (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/virtual-public-meeting/)
Comments are being accepted until April 16, 2021.

Major take aways;
US 41 will not be tolled, partly to minimize financial impact on Henderson businesses.
The river bridges will be narrowed, eliminating the potential to expand to six lanes.
The Indiana ramps to US 41 have been simplified.
The Kentucky ramps have been modified.
Two phase construction. Starting in 2022, south from US60, through 2025. Then north of US60 from 2025 through 2031.
The timeline is based on funding and may be accelerated if  additional funding is identified.
I feel that it's a major error to narrow the river bridges.  The cost to make the road wide enough for three lanes is by far the cheapest  during the initial construction.  US41 has a lot of traffic currently, and when I-69 is completed to Indianapolis, that will increase the traffic over the bridge, even though they will have a two lane free option.

No reason to have a 6-lane bridge, so it is smart to save the money. Current traffic counts are 40,000 on Twin Bridges. None of us will ever see I-69 from Mexico to Canada as Arkansas and Mississippi aren't close to acting. Even Tennessee going south of Dyersburg is questionable for next 10 years, at least. Even if completed to Memphis it would be quicker to use existing "free" route through Illinois to I-70 to get to Indy from there. I think Ohio River crossings (41 and 69) will be in 50,000 range in 25 years. 8 lanes of bridges are not needed for that traffic load (6-lane I-64 Minton Bridge in Louisville carries 80,000+).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2021, 10:28:14 AM
Even if completed to Memphis it would be quicker to use existing "free" route through Illinois to I-70 to get to Indy from there.
You sure about that? I-70 -> I-57 -> I-55 is currently 464 miles. The current IN-37 -> I-69 -> US-51 routing is 455 miles. That's 9 miles shorter, plus doesn't involve major heavy traffic corridors with large truck percentages. I would easily take a completed I-69 routing over I-70, I-57, and I-55, even if it was 10 or 15 miles longer, which in this case it is not.

The only reason the I-69 routing is not the quickest today is because of the various non-freeway segments, slower speed zones, and traffic signals. Once those are all eliminated, and it is a uniform 70 mph, it will be the faster and more direct route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-55 on April 06, 2021, 01:50:01 PM
Even if completed to Memphis it would be quicker to use existing "free" route through Illinois to I-70 to get to Indy from there.
You sure about that? I-70 -> I-57 -> I-55 is currently 464 miles. The current IN-37 -> I-69 -> US-51 routing is 455 miles. That's 9 miles shorter, plus doesn't involve major heavy traffic corridors with large truck percentages. I would easily take a completed I-69 routing over I-70, I-57, and I-55, even if it was 10 or 15 miles longer, which in this case it is not.

The only reason the I-69 routing is not the quickest today is because of the various non-freeway segments, slower speed zones, and traffic signals. Once those are all eliminated, and it is a uniform 70 mph, it will be the faster and more direct route.

Evansville and Bloomington are 60 and 55 mph respectively and have already been upgraded to interstate standards. The only slower zones on the Illinois route are Effingham and Mt Vernon at 65 mph, but this is countered by the 65+ miles of 75 mph in Arkansas. And knowing INDOT, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a 65 zone near Indy on I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on April 06, 2021, 07:18:45 PM
Even if completed to Memphis it would be quicker to use existing "free" route through Illinois to I-70 to get to Indy from there.
You sure about that? I-70 -> I-57 -> I-55 is currently 464 miles. The current IN-37 -> I-69 -> US-51 routing is 455 miles. That's 9 miles shorter, plus doesn't involve major heavy traffic corridors with large truck percentages. I would easily take a completed I-69 routing over I-70, I-57, and I-55, even if it was 10 or 15 miles longer, which in this case it is not.

The only reason the I-69 routing is not the quickest today is because of the various non-freeway segments, slower speed zones, and traffic signals. Once those are all eliminated, and it is a uniform 70 mph, it will be the faster and more direct route.

Basically it will be the same time (10 minutes on a 6.5 hours trip) but to save that 10 minutes will cost you $2-4 in a car and $11-$13 in a semi because they have suggested that pricing will be similar to Louisville tolls. Since there will be considerably less traffic on this toll bridge I wouldn't be surprised to see higher tolls than Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on April 06, 2021, 09:29:08 PM
And if your destination is southwest of Memphis, like Little Rock or Dallas, the extended I-57 will make the I-70/57 route more attractive, as it will bypass Memphis completely

If your destination is south of Memphis, the I-69 route will be competitive with the 70/57/55 route
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on June 07, 2021, 11:35:34 PM

Came across this yesterday. In an April 1, 2021, Notice to Industry (https://transportation.ky.gov/Construction-Procurement/Design%20Build%20Project%20Documents/a.%2021-9001%20Henderson%20County%20-%20I-69%20Ohio%20River%20Crossing%20Section%201%20-%20Notice%20to%20Industry.pdf), KYTC reveals that it intends to select a Design Build contractor for Section 1 of the I-69 Ohio River Crossing project by the end of 2021. This is a major step in moving the ORX project forward. If the awarding of the contract proceeds as planned, we can expect to see construction of Section 1 commence in the spring of 2022.

The project comprises the upgrading 2.4 miles of existing US 41 from KY 425 to the US 41 bridge over CSX railroad bridge north of KY 351, as well as the construction of a 2.9-mile new alignment section of I-69 from the CSX railroad bridge north of KY351 to the intersection with US 60 near Bethel Tillman Road and the US 60 bridge over CSX. New interchanges will be constructed at US 41 and US 60. In total, nine new bridges will be built, and seven removed.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 08, 2021, 08:50:37 AM

Came across this yesterday. In an April 1, 2021, Notice to Industry (https://transportation.ky.gov/Construction-Procurement/Design%20Build%20Project%20Documents/a.%2021-9001%20Henderson%20County%20-%20I-69%20Ohio%20River%20Crossing%20Section%201%20-%20Notice%20to%20Industry.pdf), KYTC reveals that it intends to select a Design Build contractor for Section 1 of the I-69 Ohio River Crossing project by the end of 2021. This is a major step in moving the ORX project forward. If the awarding of the contract proceeds as planned, we can expect to see construction of Section 1 commence in the spring of 2022.

The project comprises the upgrading 2.4 miles of existing US 41 from KY 425 to the US 41 bridge over CSX railroad bridge north of KY 351, as well as the construction of a 2.9-mile new alignment section of I-69 from the CSX railroad bridge north of KY351 to the intersection with US 60 near Bethel Tillman Road and the US 60 bridge over CSX. New interchanges will be constructed at US 41 and US 60. In total, nine new bridges will be built, and seven removed.

That means they're getting close to releasing the FEIS and ROD for the ORX.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 08, 2021, 09:09:36 AM
Does KY float bonds for road construction?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 08, 2021, 09:12:25 AM
Does KY float bonds for road construction?

Not that I know of. I thought KY was a pay-as-you go state.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 08, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
With the HDB out of service in Memphis, and a noticeable increase of truck traffic on US-51 to bypass it, it will be interesting to see if this bridge takes on a new level of importance.

(Yes, I know many of the trucks are crossing at I-155 today)

In the short term, probably not, but it might prompt more concerted reviews of regional logistics stability.

It would be interesting to see an AADT "hot map" which shows the changes in traffic flows before and after the HDB was closed and see how much was diverted via the different routes, specifically what would be I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 08, 2021, 11:51:49 AM
It would be interesting to see an AADT "hot map" which shows the changes in traffic flows before and after the HDB was closed and see how much was diverted via the different routes, specifically what would be I-69.
I'm sure INRIX would be happy to run a detailed multi-state report on truck and auto O&D and routing before and after, for a price. The good thing about the new data companies is that they are constantly collecting data and not throwing any of it away, so easy to look back at before and after snapshots in time.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on June 08, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Does KY float bonds for road construction?

Not that I know of. I thought KY was a pay-as-you go state.

KY floated bonds for the Kentucky Turnpike, and later the Parkway system, I think they did it also for the Louisville Bridges.  Once the bonds are paid off, the tolls are removed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 08, 2021, 01:46:11 PM
It would be interesting to see an AADT "hot map" which shows the changes in traffic flows before and after the HDB was closed and see how much was diverted via the different routes, specifically what would be I-69.
I'm sure INRIX would be happy to run a detailed multi-state report on truck and auto O&D and routing before and after, for a price. The good thing about the new data companies is that they are constantly collecting data and not throwing any of it away, so easy to look back at before and after snapshots in time.

INRIX collects its details by purchasing large amounts of data from Google (Android) and Apple (iPhone) along with much of the data provided by logistics firms on their own fleet. Most of the data is anonymized so people can't track a particular person or industry competitor.

A side business of INRIX is the data they sell to insurance companies, billboard companies to optimize their businesses.

A benefit of INRIX is helping DOT's find hot spots, choke points, seasonal, event driven or driving trends nationally.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 08, 2021, 02:00:45 PM
A benefit of INRIX is helping DOT's find hot spots, choke points, seasonal, event driven or driving trends nationally.

I remember for traffic pattern studies back in the old days, we'd have people stop traffic and hand people postcards that they could fill out to find out where they were coming from and where they were going, and we'd get a 10% or less hit rate and who knows how accurately they were filled out voluntarily. We also tried to do it by license plate and send people a questionnaire. I remember getting an irate call from a dad with a few kids in college, whose license plate showed up at a location when they should have been in class according to the survey he'd been mailed. Those type surveys might've caused a few incidences of marital discomfort, too. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 08, 2021, 02:24:31 PM
Does KY float bonds for road construction?

Not that I know of. I thought KY was a pay-as-you go state.

KY floated bonds for the Kentucky Turnpike, and later the Parkway system, I think they did it also for the Louisville Bridges.  Once the bonds are paid off, the tolls are removed.

KY had to enact legislation to allow the state to float bonds for the Louisville Bridges. If they do float bonds for road construction, I think it requires special legislation, and that legislation is only enacted on a project-by-project basis--not a blanket authorization to float bonds for any and all road construction like some other states (thinking...Connecticut) allow.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 08, 2021, 05:00:19 PM
Kentucky has used GARVEE bonds, but I'm not sure how those work.

They also used something called "toll credits" but I'm also not sure how those worked, since we haven't had any toll roads for nearly two decades (other than the new Louisville spans.)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 08, 2021, 05:15:23 PM
Kentucky has used GARVEE bonds, but I'm not sure how those work.

They also used something called "toll credits" but I'm also not sure how those worked, since we haven't had any toll roads for nearly two decades (other than the new Louisville spans.)

Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/federal_debt_financing/garvees/ (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/finance/tools_programs/federal_debt_financing/garvees/)

Essentially allows you to finance against Title 23 highway grant funds. If the legislation has passed, then you can borrow against that expected federal income.

As for toll credits....

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/finance/fhwa_oipd_tollcredit_infographic_102219.pdf (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/finance/fhwa_oipd_tollcredit_infographic_102219.pdf)

Toll credits reward states that spend their toll
revenue on projects that would otherwise require
federal-aid support. States and metropolitan
planning organizations are eligible to earn credits
based on the amount of toll revenue used by
the toll authority for building, improving, or
maintaining highways, bridges, or tunnels that
serve interstate commerce.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 09, 2021, 11:48:01 AM
^^^^

That would explain why Kentucky's toll credits have expired. They haven't collected any tolls (other than the new bridges) in nearly 20 years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 09, 2021, 03:12:39 PM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 09, 2021, 03:39:12 PM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Their new bridges aren’t trying to “put themselves on the map” . They’re needed infrastructure improvements.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 09, 2021, 05:04:20 PM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Their new bridges aren’t trying to “put themselves on the map” . They’re needed infrastructure improvements.

Besides, every major bridge project either done, in the works, or proposed involves the Ohio River, which effectively means a joint project with the adjoining state, regardless of whose agency takes the lead planning and construction role.  Except for necessary maintenance, there don't seem to be similar projects in the hopper within TN (although a 3rd Mississippi River Bridge north of Memphis would be nice and, considering recent events there, something of a relief).  But any reference to state income tax differentials is something of a "red herring" and completely irrelevant to any situation regarding planned infrastructure improvements; the idea of KY and TN being in some sort of undefined "competition" is disingenuous -- unless the competition is to lure as many anti-tax folks to the state as possible -- which in a state lacking an income tax would seem to be a wash at best unless there's a compensatory sales tax, in which case the newcomers better start spending their money in substantial chunks to compensate for the services they're going to utilize once residing in the state in question.   I.e., no free lunch!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 09, 2021, 06:12:59 PM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Their new bridges aren’t trying to “put themselves on the map” . They’re needed infrastructure improvements.

Besides, every major bridge project either done, in the works, or proposed involves the Ohio River, which effectively means a joint project with the adjoining state, regardless of whose agency takes the lead planning and construction role.  Except for necessary maintenance, there don't seem to be similar projects in the hopper within TN (although a 3rd Mississippi River Bridge north of Memphis would be nice and, considering recent events there, something of a relief).  But any reference to state income tax differentials is something of a "red herring" and completely irrelevant to any situation regarding planned infrastructure improvements; the idea of KY and TN being in some sort of undefined "competition" is disingenuous -- unless the competition is to lure as many anti-tax folks to the state as possible -- which in a state lacking an income tax would seem to be a wash at best unless there's a compensatory sales tax, in which case the newcomers better start spending their money in substantial chunks to compensate for the services they're going to utilize once residing in the state in question.   I.e., no free lunch!

I'm not really sure what the tax debate has to do with road construction, as neither Kentucky's income tax nor its sales tax go to road construction.

There are lots of people in Kentucky who would like to adopt Tennessee's taxing setup of no income tax and exorbitant sales taxes. I'm not one of them. My Facebook friends probably saw my rant about paying 9.5 percent sales tax for a purchase in Tennessee a couple of weeks ago. I would much rather pay an income tax on earned income -- specifically, a flat income tax rate (of, say, 15 percent) that exempts a certain amount of income (say, $50,000 for an individual, $100K for a couple, and $5K for each dependent) with no deductions, than a sales tax. I don't know know why so many people in Kentucky lust after Tennessee's taxation policies. I sure don't. I hate sales taxes. They are a hidden cost for goods and services imposed by the government. To my surprise, Tennessee even taxes food. At least Kentucky has the good sense to exempt food from its sales tax.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 09, 2021, 07:42:07 PM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Their new bridges aren’t trying to “put themselves on the map” . They’re needed infrastructure improvements.

Besides, every major bridge project either done, in the works, or proposed involves the Ohio River, which effectively means a joint project with the adjoining state, regardless of whose agency takes the lead planning and construction role.  Except for necessary maintenance, there don't seem to be similar projects in the hopper within TN (although a 3rd Mississippi River Bridge north of Memphis would be nice and, considering recent events there, something of a relief).  But any reference to state income tax differentials is something of a "red herring" and completely irrelevant to any situation regarding planned infrastructure improvements; the idea of KY and TN being in some sort of undefined "competition" is disingenuous -- unless the competition is to lure as many anti-tax folks to the state as possible -- which in a state lacking an income tax would seem to be a wash at best unless there's a compensatory sales tax, in which case the newcomers better start spending their money in substantial chunks to compensate for the services they're going to utilize once residing in the state in question.   I.e., no free lunch!

I'm not really sure what the tax debate has to do with road construction, as neither Kentucky's income tax nor its sales tax go to road construction.

There are lots of people in Kentucky who would like to adopt Tennessee's taxing setup of no income tax and exorbitant sales taxes. I'm not one of them. My Facebook friends probably saw my rant about paying 9.5 percent sales tax for a purchase in Tennessee a couple of weeks ago. I would much rather pay an income tax on earned income -- specifically, a flat income tax rate (of, say, 15 percent) that exempts a certain amount of income (say, $50,000 for an individual, $100K for a couple, and $5K for each dependent) with no deductions, than a sales tax. I don't know know why so many people in Kentucky lust after Tennessee's taxation policies. I sure don't. I hate sales taxes. They are a hidden cost for goods and services imposed by the government. To my surprise, Tennessee even taxes food. At least Kentucky has the good sense to exempt food from its sales tax.

Wow -- 9.5% is close to the highest tax rate out here in CA (which piles local taxes, on top of those imposed by the state, to the total -- and the local is often decided by local referendum at the city and/or county level).  Right now San Jose, which has an extra tax that bought us (for better or worse) the BART commute-train extension into town, is at 9.25%; some towns in Alameda County to the north are 1-1.5% higher for various reasons.  But CA income tax, relatively "progressive", has a low-end "shelf" that only applies taxes above a certain income level.  This is in comparison with Oregon, where I lived for a while, where there are no sales taxes but exceptionally high property taxes as compensation, along with a state income tax that gets a piece of you for the first dollar you make (and why folks from far-north CA and southern WA trek to OR to buy their big-ticket appliances, clothing, and other goods -- the "free rider" phenomenon!).   But I guess with more than a few TN folks (including some posters from that state) the concept of taxing one's income is particularly onerous, whereas the level and type of personal/family expenditure is considered to be discretionary (beyond subsistence one can choose how much to spend) and therefore more tolerable to those folks than having a chunk taken out of their paycheck by the state in which they're residing.  I suppose it comes down to a personal preference as to how one's cash flow is handled (input vs. output), with one's particular politics playing a variable role.  My own take is that each state's method of acquiring operating income is different, but both residents and visitors eventually pay in one form or another. 

And we don't tax food out here in CA either -- thankful for small favors!   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 10, 2021, 08:40:38 AM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Their new bridges aren’t trying to “put themselves on the map” . They’re needed infrastructure improvements.

Besides, every major bridge project either done, in the works, or proposed involves the Ohio River, which effectively means a joint project with the adjoining state, regardless of whose agency takes the lead planning and construction role.  Except for necessary maintenance, there don't seem to be similar projects in the hopper within TN (although a 3rd Mississippi River Bridge north of Memphis would be nice and, considering recent events there, something of a relief).  But any reference to state income tax differentials is something of a "red herring" and completely irrelevant to any situation regarding planned infrastructure improvements; the idea of KY and TN being in some sort of undefined "competition" is disingenuous -- unless the competition is to lure as many anti-tax folks to the state as possible -- which in a state lacking an income tax would seem to be a wash at best unless there's a compensatory sales tax, in which case the newcomers better start spending their money in substantial chunks to compensate for the services they're going to utilize once residing in the state in question.   I.e., no free lunch!

I'm not really sure what the tax debate has to do with road construction, as neither Kentucky's income tax nor its sales tax go to road construction.

There are lots of people in Kentucky who would like to adopt Tennessee's taxing setup of no income tax and exorbitant sales taxes. I'm not one of them. My Facebook friends probably saw my rant about paying 9.5 percent sales tax for a purchase in Tennessee a couple of weeks ago. I would much rather pay an income tax on earned income -- specifically, a flat income tax rate (of, say, 15 percent) that exempts a certain amount of income (say, $50,000 for an individual, $100K for a couple, and $5K for each dependent) with no deductions, than a sales tax. I don't know know why so many people in Kentucky lust after Tennessee's taxation policies. I sure don't. I hate sales taxes. They are a hidden cost for goods and services imposed by the government. To my surprise, Tennessee even taxes food. At least Kentucky has the good sense to exempt food from its sales tax.

It goes to show you that states without income taxes are going to make up for it somewhere else. Point in fact, Texas and New Hampshire both lack personal income taxes, but both of those states have sky-high property tax rates. They're going to get their (really...your) money from you one way or another.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 10, 2021, 08:46:18 AM
Sounds like Kentucky is trying to put themselves on the map with all of these fancy new bridges.  With the state income tax it is going to be hard to compete against Tennessee.
Their new bridges aren’t trying to “put themselves on the map”. They’re needed infrastructure improvements.

Besides, every major bridge project either done, in the works, or proposed involves the Ohio River, which effectively means a joint project with the adjoining state, regardless of whose agency takes the lead planning and construction role.  Except for necessary maintenance, there don't seem to be similar projects in the hopper within TN (although a 3rd Mississippi River Bridge north of Memphis would be nice and, considering recent events there, something of a relief).  But any reference to state income tax differentials is something of a "red herring" and completely irrelevant to any situation regarding planned infrastructure improvements; the idea of KY and TN being in some sort of undefined "competition" is disingenuous -- unless the competition is to lure as many anti-tax folks to the state as possible -- which in a state lacking an income tax would seem to be a wash at best unless there's a compensatory sales tax, in which case the newcomers better start spending their money in substantial chunks to compensate for the services they're going to utilize once residing in the state in question.   I.e., no free lunch!

I'm not really sure what the tax debate has to do with road construction, as neither Kentucky's income tax nor its sales tax go to road construction.

There are lots of people in Kentucky who would like to adopt Tennessee's taxing setup of no income tax and exorbitant sales taxes. I'm not one of them. My Facebook friends probably saw my rant about paying 9.5 percent sales tax for a purchase in Tennessee a couple of weeks ago. I would much rather pay an income tax on earned income -- specifically, a flat income tax rate (of, say, 15 percent) that exempts a certain amount of income (say, $50,000 for an individual, $100K for a couple, and $5K for each dependent) with no deductions, than a sales tax. I don't know know why so many people in Kentucky lust after Tennessee's taxation policies. I sure don't. I hate sales taxes. They are a hidden cost for goods and services imposed by the government. To my surprise, Tennessee even taxes food. At least Kentucky has the good sense to exempt food from its sales tax.

Wow -- 9.5% is close to the highest tax rate out here in CA (which piles local taxes, on top of those imposed by the state, to the total -- and the local is often decided by local referendum at the city and/or county level).  Right now San Jose, which has an extra tax that bought us (for better or worse) the BART commute-train extension into town, is at 9.25%; some towns in Alameda County to the north are 1-1.5% higher for various reasons.  But CA income tax, relatively "progressive", has a low-end "shelf" that only applies taxes above a certain income level.  This is in comparison with Oregon, where I lived for a while, where there are no sales taxes but exceptionally high property taxes as compensation, along with a state income tax that gets a piece of you for the first dollar you make (and why folks from far-north CA and southern WA trek to OR to buy their big-ticket appliances, clothing, and other goods -- the "free rider" phenomenon!).   But I guess with more than a few TN folks (including some posters from that state) the concept of taxing one's income is particularly onerous, whereas the level and type of personal/family expenditure is considered to be discretionary (beyond subsistence one can choose how much to spend) and therefore more tolerable to those folks than having a chunk taken out of their paycheck by the state in which they're residing.  I suppose it comes down to a personal preference as to how one's cash flow is handled (input vs. output), with one's particular politics playing a variable role.  My own take is that each state's method of acquiring operating income is different, but both residents and visitors eventually pay in one form or another. 

And we don't tax food out here in CA either -- thankful for small favors!   

The tax maxes out at 9.75%.  The county I am in was 9.25% but they used the whole "it's for the kids" slogan and the tax increase passed.  They did lower the sales tax on food when they increased the gas tax two years ago.  The registration fees and property taxes are low in Tennessee.  This keeps the sales tax higher.  The politicians will tell you that we get money from tourists this way.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 10, 2021, 11:32:06 AM
Speaking of taxes, I've heard allegations -- but have never seen any proof -- that Kentucky has raided its Road Fund (generated by gas taxes) for revenue for the General Fund (generated by income tax, sales tax, state property tax, etc.).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on June 10, 2021, 01:08:22 PM
Speaking of taxes, I've heard allegations -- but have never seen any proof -- that Kentucky has raided its Road Fund (generated by gas taxes) for revenue for the General Fund (generated by income tax, sales tax, state property tax, etc.).

They started to require Road Fund to pay for State Police (or at least a portion) which is a "raid."

Also the Gas Tax that is set aside for Underground Storage Tank clean up has been "Swept" into General Fund.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 10, 2021, 04:19:15 PM
Speaking of taxes, I've heard allegations -- but have never seen any proof -- that Kentucky has raided its Road Fund (generated by gas taxes) for revenue for the General Fund (generated by income tax, sales tax, state property tax, etc.).

They started to require Road Fund to pay for State Police (or at least a portion) which is a "raid."

Also the Gas Tax that is set aside for Underground Storage Tank clean up has been "Swept" into General Fund.

Good ole Kentucky and their creative stroke of a pen budgeting.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on June 11, 2021, 03:20:39 PM
https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/2021/06/11/holcomb-announced-475-million-road-projects-69-among-upcoming-work/7639850002/

Indiana's governor announced construction will begin in Indiana on the 1.5 mile approach to the future I-69 Ohio River bridge in 2024.

Quote
Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb Friday announced $475 million in road projects including $200 million to finish up the last mile and a half of Interstate 69 from Evansville to the Kentucky border during the Evansville Regional Economic Partnership's Lunch with the Governor.

"Kentucky will not be waiting on us one day," he said. "We are ahead of schedule and under budget."

Quote
Construction of Indiana’s approach to the I-69 Ohio River Crossing near Evansville, starting in 2024.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 11, 2021, 03:34:16 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2021, 04:22:19 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

Given Indiana's penchant for turning over state routes to local governments, I'd expect it to become an extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Kentucky removed the "Future I-69 Spur" signs from the Audubon Parkway years ago, so I don't know what the plans currently are. All of these changes from parkways to interstates have been spurred by members of the federal delegation, so I guess it depends on how much interest Rand Paul or Brett Guthrie have in getting the I designation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 11, 2021, 05:02:36 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

Given Indiana's penchant for turning over state routes to local governments, I'd expect it to become an extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Kentucky removed the "Future I-69 Spur" signs from the Audubon Parkway years ago, so I don't know what the plans currently are. All of these changes from parkways to interstates have been spurred by members of the federal delegation, so I guess it depends on how much interest Rand Paul or Brett Guthrie have in getting the I designation.

It wouldn't only be the Audubon Parkway but also a portion of the US 60 Owensboro bypass that would have to be included in any action, congressional or otherwise, to fully complete an Interstate between I-69 near Henderson and I-65 at Bowling Green; it's probable that the "backward" trumpets connecting the bypass to the parkways would need revision as well.  They may as well just extend the I-165 designation west to accomplish this -- unless they get some sort of notion to make the whole shooting match a 2di -- particularly, as has been speculated in another thread, if the Cumberland Parkway is included in that mix.  With political self-aggrandizement as an incentive, anything in that realm is possible!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 11, 2021, 05:41:10 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

it won't be signed as anything. if anything it will have an unsigned name.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 11, 2021, 09:57:53 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

it won't be signed as anything. if anything it will have an unsigned name.
More than likely it would just become an extension of Veterans Memorial Parkway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 12, 2021, 02:20:09 PM
Indiana will likely remove it from the state highway system and it will be unsigned.  The city may have some TO I-69/US 41 signs on it
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on June 13, 2021, 04:24:56 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

it won't be signed as anything. if anything it will have an unsigned name.
More than likely it would just become an extension of Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Right now, it's an INDOT maintained highway. Unless INDOT convinces the city of Evansville to take the road over, it will remain an INDOT road and would need to get signed as something. If INDOT doesn't want to go for an I-369 designation, then it will likely become something like an extension of IN 662.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 13, 2021, 04:35:57 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

it won't be signed as anything. if anything it will have an unsigned name.
More than likely it would just become an extension of Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Right now, it's an INDOT maintained highway. Unless INDOT convinces the city of Evansville to take the road over, it will remain an INDOT road and would need to get signed as something. If INDOT doesn't want to go for an I-369 designation, then it will likely become something like an extension of IN 662.

Why would it need to be signed as something?  Is that INDOT policy?

As another state's example, MDOT (Michigan) has jurisdiction of several roads that don't have route numbers, aren't signed with any, and aren't shown as state trunklines on the general MDOT highway map (although they are shown as Unnumbered Trunklines on the MDOT truck operators' map).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 13, 2021, 04:37:40 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

it won't be signed as anything. if anything it will have an unsigned name.
More than likely it would just become an extension of Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Right now, it's an INDOT maintained highway. Unless INDOT convinces the city of Evansville to take the road over, it will remain an INDOT road and would need to get signed as something. If INDOT doesn't want to go for an I-369 designation, then it will likely become something like an extension of IN 662.

Why would it need to be signed as something?  Is that INDOT policy?

As another state's example, MDOT (Michigan) has jurisdiction of several roads that don't have route numbers, aren't signed with any, and aren't shown as state trunklines on the general MDOT highway map (although they are shown as Unnumbered Trunklines on the MDOT truck operators' map).
Indot tends to sign all their roads. It's just what they do. I'm not aware of a single secret state highway in Indiana with the exception of SR 431 in Indianapolis.

Pixel 5

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on June 13, 2021, 04:52:40 PM
When the Interstate 69 Ohio Bridge is complete, what should the "orphaned" portion of Interstate 69 become? Interstate 169, or a non-interstate extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway? Also, on the Kentucky side, since future 69 will depart the existing US 41 alignment just north of the KY 351 interchange, the Audubon Parkway can still become Interstate 369 (assuming the proposal to add the parkway to the Interstate System is not dead).

it won't be signed as anything. if anything it will have an unsigned name.
More than likely it would just become an extension of Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Right now, it's an INDOT maintained highway. Unless INDOT convinces the city of Evansville to take the road over, it will remain an INDOT road and would need to get signed as something. If INDOT doesn't want to go for an I-369 designation, then it will likely become something like an extension of IN 662.

Why would it need to be signed as something?  Is that INDOT policy?

As another state's example, MDOT (Michigan) has jurisdiction of several roads that don't have route numbers, aren't signed with any, and aren't shown as state trunklines on the general MDOT highway map (although they are shown as Unnumbered Trunklines on the MDOT truck operators' map).
Indot tends to sign all their roads. It's just what they do. I'm not aware of a single secret state highway in Indiana with the exception of SR 431 in Indianapolis.

Pixel 5



What I have had explained to me by a couple different people who work for INDOT is that they want to make it easy for drivers to know who is responsible for a road. If it has an interstate/US highway/state highway shield, you contact INDOT, if it doesn't, you contact the city or county. That's why they broke up routes like 25 and 26 in Lafayette and 22 in Kokomo, they didn't want to leave signs up and get contacted for roads they weren't responsible for. 431 is an exception because it's such a small segment of road it isn't worth the effort to sign. Another exception is business routes, those routes are signed by localities but not maintained by INDOT unless they are concurrent with an INDOT highway.

I don't think the city of Evansville will want the road, so INDOT will sign it as something.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on June 13, 2021, 05:12:56 PM

In the Courier & Press newspaper article (https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/2021/06/11/holcomb-announced-475-million-road-projects-69-among-upcoming-work/7639850002/) reporting the new road projects in southwest Indiana, there was this:

Quote
There's not a firm construction start date on the bridge, which is estimated to cost about $1.5 billion. The project team's most recent estimate was between 2027 and 2031, although officials in both states hope to speed things up.

If the estimated start date doesn't change, it will be at least 2030 before the bridge completes, considering a build time of 36 or 42 months, which is not unreasonable. The only way this project will be sped up is more money from Washington, namely a very large sum. It's possible that will happen when the infrastructure bill is passed and signed into law. The bill is full of big numbers, an enormous amount of money, and a lot of road and bridge projects that are ready to go but on the back burner, will likely be kick started. Good chance the ORX bridge project will be one of them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 13, 2021, 05:15:01 PM
Unpopular opinion, but I personally think that little stub should be converted to a medium speed(45-55MPH) boulevard with bike lanes and the interchange downgraded to an intersection be it roundabout or signal. Open it up to development.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 13, 2021, 08:58:03 PM
It would be a logical x41 since it will connect to US 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 13, 2021, 09:15:38 PM
It would be a logical x41 since it will connect to US 41.

The prospects for the stub probably depend upon whether INDOT wants to retain it as a 41>69 connector or simply relinquish it to Evansville to do with it whatever they want.  If the latter, then anything is possible, from just leaving the configuration as is to the "boulevardization" mentioned earlier.   There will likely be any number of parties who will put their 2 cents (vocally adjusted for inflation) in about the available options; but since it's likely it will still be in use in its present role for several more years, there's ample time to come up with something!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 13, 2021, 10:14:24 PM
Unpopular opinion, but I personally think that little stub should be converted to a medium speed(45-55MPH) boulevard with bike lanes and the interchange downgraded to an intersection be it roundabout or signal. Open it up to development.

That sounds great except it borders the Ohio on the south side and there is a high levee there.

But I do like the "grand boulevard" concept because it is the main drag into the city center.

As for residential development on the north side of the road, it has possibilities because Veterans Parkway sits in the bottom where the historical flood plain meets the plateau that is Evansville.

But to get any decent views, that development would have to be set higher than the levee across the road.

And I assume people who would want to live next to a river would want great views.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on June 14, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
One would think that the former I-164/I-69 stub from the bridge approach to current US-41 could be labeled US-41 so that through truck traffic from the north would be routed onto the new toll bridge for revenue.  KY could label the orphaned US-41 bridge to be Alt 41 (since it already exists on the south side of Henderson).  If Indiana definitely does not want to officially denote any Alt US highway, they could just label it To-Alt 41, since the KY border is approx 1/2 mile south of the interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 14, 2021, 09:19:43 PM
Unpopular opinion, but I personally think that little stub should be converted to a medium speed(45-55MPH) boulevard with bike lanes and the interchange downgraded to an intersection be it roundabout or signal. Open it up to development.

That sounds great except it borders the Ohio on the south side and there is a high levee there.

But I do like the "grand boulevard" concept because it is the main drag into the city center.

As for residential development on the north side of the road, it has possibilities because Veterans Parkway sits in the bottom where the historical flood plain meets the plateau that is Evansville.

But to get any decent views, that development would have to be set higher than the levee across the road.

And I assume people who would want to live next to a river would want great views.

and a large wastewater plant too.  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 15, 2021, 12:29:57 AM
One would think that the former I-164/I-69 stub from the bridge approach to current US-41 could be labeled US-41 so that through truck traffic from the north would be routed onto the new toll bridge for revenue.  KY could label the orphaned US-41 bridge to be Alt 41 (since it already exists on the south side of Henderson).  If Indiana definitely does not want to officially denote any Alt US highway, they could just label it To-Alt 41, since the KY border is approx 1/2 mile south of the interchange.

Actually, that's one of the better ideas I've heard for how to configure the 41 crossing and access points once the I-69 bridge is in operation.  The one problem is that KY seems averse to multiplexing Interstates and parallel US highways, preferring to maintain separate alignments whenever possible.  Since the current bridges as well as the remaining one post-Interstate are within KY, their policies may carry the day.  Nice try, though!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 15, 2021, 11:14:53 AM
One would think that the former I-164/I-69 stub from the bridge approach to current US-41 could be labeled US-41 so that through truck traffic from the north would be routed onto the new toll bridge for revenue.  KY could label the orphaned US-41 bridge to be Alt 41 (since it already exists on the south side of Henderson).  If Indiana definitely does not want to officially denote any Alt US highway, they could just label it To-Alt 41, since the KY border is approx 1/2 mile south of the interchange.

Actually, that's one of the better ideas I've heard for how to configure the 41 crossing and access points once the I-69 bridge is in operation.  The one problem is that KY seems averse to multiplexing Interstates and parallel US highways, preferring to maintain separate alignments whenever possible.  Since the current bridges as well as the remaining one post-Interstate are within KY, their policies may carry the day.  Nice try, though!

Notable exception: The Clays Ferry bridge crossing the Kentucky River on I-75. The original span (northbound) was built for US 25 and 25/421 are routed onto the interstate, with the old bridge carrying a state route designation.

However, the hangup with routing US 41 onto the new I-69 bridge is that it will be a toll facility. It make sense to keep US 41 routed on the existing Henderson "strip" and crossing the river and then the border. Should Indiana decide to route US 41 onto VMP and I-69 and turn over the route through town and on to I-64 to the city, then Kentucky wouldn't be involved in the decision.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2021, 07:38:40 PM
Another question pertaining to when the new Interstate 69 bridge opens, this time the subject is the existing US 41 interchange between Interstate 69 and the Veterans Memorial Parkway. Does anyone think this interchange will be reconfigured after the 69 bridge is complete? I could see it being downgraded from a free-flow interchange to a service interchange (such as a diamond, a diverging diamond, or a SPUI) with US 41 stopping while current 69/VMP remains free-flowing. The existing cloverleaf ramps are kind of goofy-looking, and I think the existing configuration will be overkill once traffic is relocated to the new bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 16, 2021, 08:19:53 PM
Another question pertaining to when the new Interstate 69 bridge opens, this time the subject is the existing US 41 interchange between Interstate 69 and the Veterans Memorial Parkway. Does anyone think this interchange will be reconfigured after the 69 bridge is complete? I could see it being downgraded from a free-flow interchange to a service interchange (such as a diamond, a diverging diamond, or a SPUI) with US 41 stopping while current 69/VMP remains free-flowing. The existing cloverleaf ramps are kind of goofy-looking, and I think the existing configuration will be overkill once traffic is relocated to the new bridge.

They could probably eliminate the interchange and replace it with a signalized intersection since it will be handling a lot less traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 16, 2021, 09:51:50 PM
Another question pertaining to when the new Interstate 69 bridge opens, this time the subject is the existing US 41 interchange between Interstate 69 and the Veterans Memorial Parkway. Does anyone think this interchange will be reconfigured after the 69 bridge is complete? I could see it being downgraded from a free-flow interchange to a service interchange (such as a diamond, a diverging diamond, or a SPUI) with US 41 stopping while current 69/VMP remains free-flowing. The existing cloverleaf ramps are kind of goofy-looking, and I think the existing configuration will be overkill once traffic is relocated to the new bridge.

They could probably eliminate the interchange and replace it with a signalized intersection since it will be handling a lot less traffic after the I-69 bridge opens.

Given the expense of the I-69 bridge construction (as well as the rest of the corridor project), I'd fully expect INDOT to take the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to the current interchange, weird-looking ramps or not (the truly weird ones look like they're addressing largely contraflow movements) unless pressed by the City of Evansville or the local metro planners.  Again, there's no specific indication as to whether the stretch east of US 41 will be relinquished or remain under INDOT auspices; that decision would have to precede any regarding configuration changes. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 16, 2021, 10:52:28 PM
Why spend the money to reconfigure the interchange until it becomes necessary, such as when one of the bridges reaches the end of its life a la the US 2/US 51 trumpet?

Remember, there are people who actively shunpike the I-65 bridge in Louisville by taking city streets through downtown to cross on US 31. You'll probably have plenty of that on US 41 once I-69 opens as well. And also, there's the big argument in northern Kentucky and Cincinnati against the tolling of the Brent Spence Bridge and a new adjacent span that it will increase shunpiking on the other bridges. Which is another reason I think it's foolish to tear down one of the US 41 bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 17, 2021, 05:53:59 AM
^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don’t agree with this strategy, but likely why it’s being done / proposed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 17, 2021, 10:12:32 AM
^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don’t agree with this strategy, but likely why it’s being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on June 17, 2021, 11:02:10 AM
As I posted earlier, it's expected that with routine maintenance, the oldest of the two bridges will be nearing 130 years old and in active service.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 17, 2021, 11:04:55 AM
^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don’t agree with this strategy, but likely why it’s being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

The youngest of the two US 41 bridges was built in 1968. I hardly consider that "advanced age," especially since it's younger than I am.  :-D

Still makes little sense to tear down the newest of the two bridges and leave the oldest one standing, especially since it's narrower and not as close to modern standards as the newer one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 17, 2021, 11:54:19 AM
^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don’t agree with this strategy, but likely why it’s being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

The youngest of the two US 41 bridges was built in 1968. I hardly consider that "advanced age," especially since it's younger than I am.  :-D

Still makes little sense to tear down the newest of the two bridges and leave the oldest one standing, especially since it's narrower and not as close to modern standards as the newer one.

It's because the older bridge is considered "historical" while the newer bridge is not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on June 17, 2021, 12:39:25 PM
The report made no note of its "historic" nature - it's just in better condition.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on June 19, 2021, 01:57:44 AM
^ I think the idea is to downgrade the shunpike route enough as possible to make it more desirable to divert to the new toll bridge. I don’t agree with this strategy, but likely why it’s being done / proposed.

It's easier and less expensive to maintain 6 lanes of river crossing on two bridges than 8 lanes on three bridges, two of which are in advanced age. I think there is something to downgrading the free crossing to a more local type of route to discourage thru traffic, but  I think the future maintenance factor is a big one too.

The youngest of the two US 41 bridges was built in 1968. I hardly consider that "advanced age," especially since it's younger than I am.  :-D

Still makes little sense to tear down the newest of the two bridges and leave the oldest one standing, especially since it's narrower and not as close to modern standards as the newer one.

It's nothing to do with the age -- the older bridge is just in better shape! The southbound bridge has been a maintenance money pit compared to the northbound span. As I recall from the report, the SB had to be redecked (or at least resurfaced) before it was 15 years old. The NB didn't need such work until it was almost 55 years old.  And you'll see routine work being done on the SB a whole lot more often than the NB.  It's newer, but that doesn't make it better.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 21, 2021, 03:01:47 PM
They could mark a US 41W and a US 41E.  The US 41E could rejoin at I-64 and US 41.  US 41 would become US 41W.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 21, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
They could mark a US 41W and a US 41E.  The US 41E could rejoin at I-64 and US 41.  US 41 would become US 41W.

I'd disagree with that marking and implied signage, if US 41W is a 2-lane free bridge and US 41E is a 4 lane toll bridge. Better to distinguish between the two - make a "US 41 Business" for the 2-lane and "I-69/US 41 TOLL" to reinforce the function of the 2 routes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 21, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
I'm with the position of leave US-41 where it is now, and make the new route solely I-69. No need to shift the US route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 21, 2021, 09:50:07 PM
lettered routes are evil!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 22, 2021, 07:58:14 AM
lettered routes are evil!

Why is that? 

We have several in TN.

US 19E/19W
US 11E/11W
US 25E/25W
US 45E/45W
US 70N/US 70S

We even have a multiplex of US 70/US 70S and a US 41/US 41A.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2021, 12:57:12 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 22, 2021, 04:01:12 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 22, 2021, 04:24:49 PM
^ I’d say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It’s more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 22, 2021, 06:07:52 PM
^ I’d say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It’s more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

While I-35W is the shorter of the two legs -- and probably carries more through traffic -- Dallas is the historically larger -- and more corporately prominent -- of the two cities; if an official body (AASHTO, FHWA) were making the decision today, they'd likely opt for the Dallas (35E) loop carrying the mainline designation.  But Fort Worth is catching up; from census projections, the incorporated city will pass the 1M mark mid-decade (Dallas is hemmed in by incorporated suburbs while Fort Worth has more room to expand).  But any decision of that type is likely moot; the E/W split has been signed for 60-odd years; the chances that TxDOT, any local jurisdiction or MPO, or any federal entity would put such a move on their radar are slim & none.     
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-55 on June 22, 2021, 07:16:52 PM
^ I’d say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It’s more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

While I-35W is the shorter of the two legs -- and probably carries more through traffic -- Dallas is the historically larger -- and more corporately prominent -- of the two cities; if an official body (AASHTO, FHWA) were making the decision today, they'd likely opt for the Dallas (35E) loop carrying the mainline designation.  But Fort Worth is catching up; from census projections, the incorporated city will pass the 1M mark mid-decade (Dallas is hemmed in by incorporated suburbs while Fort Worth has more room to expand).  But any decision of that type is likely moot; the E/W split has been signed for 60-odd years; the chances that TxDOT, any local jurisdiction or MPO, or any federal entity would put such a move on their radar are slim & none.     

Let's also not forget which leg continues the mile markers of I-35, in both cases it's I-35E. A massive exit renumbering would likely deter some changes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 22, 2021, 09:03:26 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

^ I’d say in both instances, I-35W would be the mainline, I-35E would be the loop. It’s more obvious with Dallas-Fort Worth rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Agreed.  Dallas has I-45 already, and St. Paul has a truck restriction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 01:40:07 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 23, 2021, 06:56:06 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

US 2:  the south part of Canada.
US 422:  implied multiplex w/US 322 (although it is a bit weird and/or gratuitous, IMO).
Various IN separate routes:  Mileage cap + route number apathy.
Various AR separate routes:  Mostly topology.
Various CA separate routes:  Recissions and deletions and a modicum of politically-motivated activity.
"Elegance" is not a major factor in most DOT policy; remember that they have "handlers" with any number of agendas with which to deal.   In some instances (close to home out here!) it seems the agency in question has simply given up on any semblance of continuity or order. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on June 23, 2021, 09:29:14 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

US 2:  the south part of Canada.
US 422:  implied multiplex w/US 322 (although it is a bit weird and/or gratuitous, IMO).
Various IN separate routes:  Mileage cap + route number apathy.
Various AR separate routes:  Mostly topology.
Various CA separate routes:  Recissions and deletions and a modicum of politically-motivated activity.
"Elegance" is not a major factor in most DOT policy; remember that they have "handlers" with any number of agendas with which to deal.   In some instances (close to home out here!) it seems the agency in question has simply given up on any semblance of continuity or order. 

Mileage cap is not the reason INDOT has turned local roads over to cities. It's just that INDOT doesn't want them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-55 on June 23, 2021, 09:48:23 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?

US 2:  the south part of Canada.
US 422:  implied multiplex w/US 322 (although it is a bit weird and/or gratuitous, IMO).
Various IN separate routes:  Mileage cap + route number apathy.
Various AR separate routes:  Mostly topology.
Various CA separate routes:  Recissions and deletions and a modicum of politically-motivated activity.
"Elegance" is not a major factor in most DOT policy; remember that they have "handlers" with any number of agendas with which to deal.   In some instances (close to home out here!) it seems the agency in question has simply given up on any semblance of continuity or order. 

Mileage cap is not the reason INDOT has turned local roads over to cities. It's just that INDOT doesn't want them.

And thus don't have to pay to maintain them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 23, 2021, 09:59:44 PM
I'm fine with lettered routes being the child route of another route, but not with a route splitting into multiple lettered routes.  Thus I'm OK with things like US 20 and US 20A or even US 9 and US 9W, but not with things like US 11E/US 11W.  Ones like the latter should be removed; just pick one to be the mainline and drop the suffix (which is what happened to US 9E, most of which is now just US 9).  Routes should be linear, such that one could clinch them by driving from point A to point B without loops, backtracking, etc.

I don't think the point of lettered/directionally suffixed routes was to make it difficult to clinch a highway.  :-D

Ostensibly, the point was, "these are equally acceptable routes to get from one location to another, or we want traffic along one numbered route to serve two different cities along the way, so instead of routing all traffic along one mainline, drivers have a choice between two roughly-equivalent routes."

Of course, now most of these routes have been supplanted by interstates (The 45 and 49 splits being obvious exceptions). But back in the day, either branch of US 31 was an acceptable way to get from Louisville to Nashville. And in the case of travel between Bristol and Knoxville, one branch serves Kingsport, while the other serves Johnson City and Morristown.

And how would you settle a dispute between Dallas and Ft. Worth, or between Minneapolis and St. Paul, over which city should get mainline I-35 and which should get I-235?
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

Then how do you explain discontinuous routes, such as US 2, US 422, and any number of states that have separate segments of routes with the same number?
Not sure what you mean by "explain".  I don't like them either, but we weren't discussing them.  Still, unless you have a situatoin like NJ 7 or like I-95 used to be, they don't really affect clinching too much, at least.  Regarding US 2, I consider it to be two separate routes with a duplicate number (another pet peeve).

Needless to say, the US route numbering system is a hot mess.  It saddens me that the interstates are becoming more like that (see: I-87, I-69 E/C/W, I-74, etc.).  Suffixed routes especially grate me because NY uses suffixes completely differently.  The concept of a route splitting just doesn't exist here, and hasn't since US 9E bit the dust.  Plus they just feel like a relic from the past.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 10:01:20 PM
^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 23, 2021, 10:13:53 PM
^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?
That list encompassed a multitude of issues.  I-87 is a duplicate.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2021, 10:28:11 PM
^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It’s west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 11:06:08 PM
^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?
That list encompassed a multitude of issues.  I-87 is a duplicate.
True, but it’s certainly not the first. Duplicate routes have been around for decades in certain instances. They’re two distinctive routes in different regions.

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?
It’s west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.
Exactly. There’s been reasonable arguments that the route should have been east-west as opposed to north-south, but either way, it’s 50-50 and is acceptable in the ultimately picked north-south form, and give its southern terminus being located between I-85 and I-95, I-87 fits the grid.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on June 24, 2021, 12:05:09 AM
What does any of this have to do with I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: bmeiser on June 24, 2021, 02:19:34 AM
What does any of this have to do with I-69?
Thank you!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 24, 2021, 08:27:05 AM
Do they plan on keep up the toll collection in perpetuity?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 24, 2021, 11:26:28 AM
^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It’s west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

True, for the section that's currently signed. But if and when the southern I-87 is fully built out, the vast majority of it will lie to the east of I-95.  Now as far as I-87's numbering is concerned, that was purely political. Looking on a map, you'll notice that most of the proposed alignment for I-87 runs in an east-west direction, save for the roughly 40-mile section between Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina that runs north-south.

I recall some earlier proposals considered designating the corridor as I-44, I-50, or I-89, but from what I've read, I-87 was selected by North Carolina officials to commemorate North Carolina's admission into the Union in 1787. Again, the corridor's designation was rooted in politics, without regard to whether it fit into the national numbering grid. Think of I-87 as North Carolina's version of I-99.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2021, 12:40:15 PM
What does any of this have to do with I-69?

The discussion turned to signing US 41E on the new I-69 and US 41W on the existing US 41, and went from there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on June 24, 2021, 01:00:43 PM
^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?
That list encompassed a multitude of issues.  I-87 is a duplicate.
True, but it’s certainly not the first. Duplicate routes have been around for decades in certain instances. They’re two distinctive routes in different regions.

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?
It’s west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.
Exactly. There’s been reasonable arguments that the route should have been east-west as opposed to north-south, but either way, it’s 50-50 and is acceptable in the ultimately picked north-south form, and give its southern terminus being located between I-85 and I-95, I-87 fits the grid.
So the answer to "we have these numbering issues" is "let's just create more of them"?  We should be trying to make the system better (ie, more ordered), not worse.  And yes, it's majority east-west (it's not even remotley close), so an east-west number (of which there are many) would be better.  Heck, if NCDOT really wanted to put the corridor on the map, they could have called it I-50 or I-60!  It may not actually be transcontinental, but IMO better using an unlikely to ever be used x0 than duplicating a north-south number for no reason.

^ How exactly is I-87 South out of grid?

It’s west of I-95 and east of I-85 south of Rocky Mount. So not completely.

True, for the section that's currently signed. But if and when the southern I-87 is fully built out, the vast majority of it will lie to the east of I-95.  Now as far as I-87's numbering is concerned, that was purely political. Looking on a map, you'll notice that most of the proposed alignment for I-87 runs in an east-west direction, save for the roughly 40-mile section between Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina that runs north-south.

I recall some earlier proposals considered designating the corridor as I-44, I-50, or I-89, but from what I've read, I-87 was selected by North Carolina officials to commemorate North Carolina's admission into the Union in 1787. Again, the corridor's designation was rooted in politics, without regard to whether it fit into the national numbering grid. Think of I-87 as North Carolina's version of I-99.
They submitted for I-89, but then AASHTO changed it to I-87 for unknown reason.

What does any of this have to do with I-69?
Wow, you really don't like thread drift, do you?  Perhaps forum threads should each say "I'm a discussion, not a RSS feed of press releases".  As mentioned, someone proposed splitting US 41 into US 41E and US 41W (after previous discussions of moving US 41 for whatever reason), and things snowballed from there.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 24, 2021, 01:01:18 PM
What does any of this have to do with I-69?

The discussion turned to signing US 41E on the new I-69 and US 41W on the existing US 41, and went from there.

It would not be without precedent.  KY heretofore had a US 41E/US 41W.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 24, 2021, 01:58:21 PM
True, for the section that's currently signed. But if and when the southern I-87 is fully built out, the vast majority of it will lie to the east of I-95.  Now as far as I-87's numbering is concerned, that was purely political. Looking on a map, you'll notice that most of the proposed alignment for I-87 runs in an east-west direction, save for the roughly 40-mile section between Norfolk, Virginia and Elizabeth City, North Carolina that runs north-south.
So? Again, disagreements about the numbering aside (it's not changing), a portion of the north-south route lies between I-85 and I-95, therefore it's in grid. How about routes like I-85, that lie the vast majority west of I-77? I-81, that lies partially west of I-77? I-71 which lies the vast majority east of I-75? I-59 which lies half east of I-65? The grid is not perfect.

As for what's east-west vs. north-south, I'm looking at existing designations. The 96 mile portion of US-64 is signed as east-west, and the 98 mile portion of US-17 (between US-64 and I-64) is signed as north-south. So it's roughly half. I don't really see an issue that much with east-west vs. north-south and causing visible confusion outside of the grid-strict roadgeek community which doesn't really have real-world implications. Would've an east-west designation been more desirable? Maybe. But it's not worth getting upset over now.

I recall some earlier proposals considered designating the corridor as I-44, I-50, or I-89, but from what I've read, I-87 was selected by North Carolina officials to commemorate North Carolina's admission into the Union in 1787. Again, the corridor's designation was rooted in politics, without regard to whether it fit into the national numbering grid. Think of I-87 as North Carolina's version of I-99.
False. AASHTO assigned them I-87 after I-89 was applied for by NCDOT. Why NCDOT went with a north-south route vs. east-west, who knows, but the specific number was not chosen by them.

And yes, it's majority east-west (it's not even remotley close), so an east-west number (of which there are many) would be better.  Heck, if NCDOT really wanted to put the corridor on the map, they could have called it I-50 or I-60!  It may not actually be transcontinental, but IMO better using an unlikely to ever be used x0 than duplicating a north-south number for no reason.
See comments above. Given existing designations, it's close to a 50-50 split, and given its north-south, it fits into the grid.

The corridor that should have more pushback, but doesn't seem to that much compared to I-87 (it being north-south vs. east-west and its numbering being a duplicate), should be I-587. It's a blatantly east-west route (straight shot, and no existing portions signed as north-south), and yet NCDOT is proposing designating it a north-south route. That is something that is truly going to cause confusion to the motoring public, and is worth legitimately complaining about.

There's also I-73, which given it will likely only ever exist between Roanoke and Myrtle Beach, is entirely out of grid. But again, it's an established designation, like I-99, and is not going to be changed. I personally don't have an issue with it.

The grid isn't perfect.  :-o
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2021, 03:32:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on June 24, 2021, 03:44:41 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       
Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2021, 05:03:08 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       
Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

If anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two sections of I-87 will be connected in any of our lifetimes, I've got plans for a new cross-S.F. Bay Bridge called the "Smartbarton" for which I'm searching for investors!  DM me if you're interested!  :spin:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on June 24, 2021, 05:05:13 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       
Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

If anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two sections of I-87 will be connected in any of our lifetimes, I've got plans for a new cross-S.F. Bay Bridge called the "Smartbarton" for which I'm searching for investors!  DM me if you're interested!  :spin:
Ask FritzOwl. He may be interested  :)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2021, 05:08:03 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As stated on more than one occasion, the odd-numbered designation of I-87 (and originally I-89) was cobbled up by NCDOT when they got in-state pushback on any even numbered available designation (their original choice) because of having to renumber one or another rural state highways -- and the folks living along those highways would have had to change their addresses as referenced to said highway (i.e. 23456 Highway 48).  To avoid that, they chose an odd number for a state highway clear across the state (89), citing the trajectory of I-85 as a rationale.  AASHTO rejected the concept of preference being given for the retention of state highway numbers stating Interstate corridors had priority -- but acquiesced to the odd trajectory concept -- while changing the number to 87 (a much closer existing NC number) to more longitudinally line up with the existing I-87 in NY (the "87" historical rationale was a CYA move later on).  My thoughts are and have been that AASHTO should have dismissed all the NC arguments and gone back to an even number, with 46 being the most logical choice, as NC 46 is a very short highway that didn't encroach upon the future Interstate corridor in question.  But they didn't for some inexplicable reason, so 87 it is for the present.       
Even it's like several decades in the future, isn't it theoretically possible that the two sections could connect by rerouting down existing 87 down the GSP in NJ, and routing the new 87 along US 13 in VA, MD, DE, then a fixed Cape May-Lewes crossing as the last piece of the puzzle? I guess that was AASHTO's thought for assigning 87 instead of 89?

But yea, the chance of them connecting is very unlikely, and AASHTO should've rejected NC's claim and assigned it I-46.

If anyone thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two sections of I-87 will be connected in any of our lifetimes, I've got plans for a new cross-S.F. Bay Bridge called the "Smartbarton" for which I'm searching for investors!  DM me if you're interested!  :spin:
Ask FritzOwl. He may be interested  :)

Only if it comes with a pre-approved Interstate designation, preferably a new 2di!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2021, 05:34:41 PM
Kentucky has been seeing all sorts of interstates designated with numbering conflicts with existing state routes. KY 69 is in the same general area of the state as I-69, but there's been no move to renumber it. We now have I-165 signed, but there have been no issues with KY 165, which is in the northeastern/north-central part of the state.

If North Carolina had no issues with I-74 and US 74 being in the same state, why would they have had to renumber a state highway?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2021, 06:57:19 PM
Kentucky has been seeing all sorts of interstates designated with numbering conflicts with existing state routes. KY 69 is in the same general area of the state as I-69, but there's been no move to renumber it. We now have I-165 signed, but there have been no issues with KY 165, which is in the northeastern/north-central part of the state.

If North Carolina had no issues with I-74 and US 74 being in the same state, why would they have had to renumber a state highway?

You'd have to ask NCDOT; that's the explanation they gave back in 2016 when the designation was submitted to AASHTO.  As said before, it was likely a knee-jerk reaction foisted upon them by state legislators or local officials regarding addresses (someone likely told someone else that the usual practice with state highway conflicts or other issues was to simply renumber the route, as they did when they elected to swap out NC 136 with NC 3 so as to put the latter "historic" number nearer Dale Earnhardt's hometown of Kannapolis).  But to date, they haven't done a thing with NC 87, a major cross-state diagonal -- but then, signage for I-87 is currently only limited to the qualifying short section immediately east of Raleigh.  Maybe NCDOT simply overreacts at times -- but their "rules" seem to mimic the English language -- for every rule there's any number of exceptions! 

But what is interesting is that their original choice was a 2nd I-44 rather than selecting a new number from the available pool between 42 and 62.  Maybe the repeating-integer "44" just appealed to them (like an athlete selecting a jersey number) -- but its choice indicates that their shift to an odd-numbered designation only came about after that one was rejected because it was duplicative when other designations were available.  It may come down to pure obstinacy within NC political and/or agency circles; not unprecedented by any means. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on June 24, 2021, 08:10:27 PM
And dear NCDOT, how about I-42 and NC 42?

hypocrites
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 24, 2021, 09:10:00 PM
And dear NCDOT, how about I-42 and NC 42?

hypocrites

That -- and, like more than a few states, they've just given up on maintaining any sort of system or convention with their state highways.  But to be totally fair, I-42 was foisted upon them by AASHTO after they had submitted, first, I-50 and, later I-36 for the US 70 corridor (the latter, of course, "violating" the grid -- not that it means much of anything anymore!).  By that time AASHTO was likely royally pissed off at the agency and picked the first even number north of I-40 just to put the matter to rest; the fact that NC 42 actually crosses that corridor didn't seem to figure into the decision at all.   Nevertheless, NCDOT accepted the decision and rather quickly posted "Future I-42 Corridor" signage along the existing route.

At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on June 24, 2021, 10:24:29 PM
At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!
Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Scott5114 on June 24, 2021, 10:38:37 PM
It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

More to the point, it's confusing to non-roadgeeks from outside the area. It's too easy to misinterpret "I-35W" as being a weird way to sign "I-35 westbound" and think they should be looking for "I-35S" to go south.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 24, 2021, 10:57:09 PM
At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!
Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.
I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SkyPesos on June 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!
Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.
I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.
Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on June 25, 2021, 07:17:05 AM
At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!
Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.
I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.
Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

Yes, the number 69 was chosen to incorporate the already existing section as a Canada to Mexico route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2021, 11:58:25 AM
At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!
Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.
I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.
Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

Yes, the number 69 was chosen to incorporate the already existing section as a Canada to Mexico route.

It was originally touted as the "NAFTA Superhighway;" a continuous route between our two neighbors.

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

More to the point, it's confusing to non-roadgeeks from outside the area. It's too easy to misinterpret "I-35W" as being a weird way to sign "I-35 westbound" and think they should be looking for "I-35S" to go south.

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E." It makes me want to give them a brief history on the numbering of the split routes. If one of my reporter friends ever makes that mistake again, I may straighten them out on it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 25, 2021, 05:54:59 PM
At least with the I-69 corridor the numbering was set in stone back in 1995, so any similar BS hasn't occurred!
Was 69 chosen just to provide a single interstate number between Mexico and Ontario? I'm pretty sure a different interstate number would be used (like nearby 71, or maybe even a unused one like 47 for at least the TX portion) if someone had even a slight bit of concern for what the number means, and potential sign theft for a pretty long highway. Like in its completed form, and using the 69E branch as the main one, it'll be longer than all x5s except 95 and 75.
I-69 was already in place north of Indianapolis from the original system.
Yea that's what I was asking, was 69 chosen to extend south because of it's existing section with a border crossing to Canada, instead of another interstate like 71, which doesn't have a border crossing at the north, though doesn't require new construction to get southwest to the KY-TN border at least.

Yes, the number 69 was chosen to incorporate the already existing section as a Canada to Mexico route.

It was originally touted as the "NAFTA Superhighway;" a continuous route between our two neighbors.

It's not the point but it's certainly the effect.  Plus the idea of a route being anything other than a single linear path is inelegent.

More to the point, it's confusing to non-roadgeeks from outside the area. It's too easy to misinterpret "I-35W" as being a weird way to sign "I-35 westbound" and think they should be looking for "I-35S" to go south.

I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E." It makes me want to give them a brief history on the numbering of the split routes. If one of my reporter friends ever makes that mistake again, I may straighten them out on it.

My cousin-in-law, who worked as a field crew supervisor for CA's DOH back in the "good old days", always referred to US 99E as "99 East" and, of course 99W as "99 West"; apparently this was the DOH lexicon, at least in District 3, where he worked.  I suppose since if & when they were bannered (like on the original multiplex with I-80 and US 40 from Sacramento to Roseville), the split/suffixed 99's were "NORTH" and "SOUTH" on the banners, so the route differentiation and the direction of travel weren't likely to be confused. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 25, 2021, 06:33:28 PM
I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E."
I don't know about that. This seems like persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness, given that the E stands for east.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 28, 2021, 12:24:52 PM
Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 12:27:09 PM
Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.
:bigass: :bigass: :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 28, 2021, 05:26:42 PM
Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.

Duplicate post. You already stated this in the other I-69 construction thread. Are you of the notion that multiple posts of the same response will get a different result?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on June 28, 2021, 05:33:58 PM
Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

The I-69 will cost nearly 1 Billion dollars to run it across from IN into KY and over the Ohio River to meet up with the current signed I-69 with estimates of 35 years of maintenance (yeah right).  It is time to Breezewood now and save 1 Billion dollars.


Central Alternative 1B is the lowest-cost option. Construction has been separated into Sections 1 and 2. The total estimated construction costs are $237 million for Section 1 and $975 million for Section 2 (year of expenditure). This total cost includes roadway and bridge operations and maintenance for 35 years following completion of construction.

Duplicate post. You already stated this in the other I-69 construction thread. Are you of the notion that multiple posts of the same response will get a different result?

I have put the troll on ignore. I encourage others to do the same.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Scott5114 on June 28, 2021, 06:11:34 PM
I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E."
I don't know about that. This seems like persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness, given that the E stands for east.

Does it, though? If it's carried in the books as "25E" rather than "25 East", even though the letter may have been chosen because it is the east branch, it isn't an actual abbreviation for "25 East", so the expansion would be wrong.

Oklahoma has an OK-3W/OK-3E split. But it also has an OK-74E that's actually west of OK-74. But that's because Oklahoma does letter spur routes and it's the fifth spur off of OK-74. So if you assume any OK-XXE means "east" and expand it accordingly, you're going to have a bad time.

Do you realize what kind of money this thing is going to cost?  Who is going to purchase the US 41 SB bridge?

You are, right now. I'm sending the repo man to your house as we speak.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 28, 2021, 07:35:06 PM
he's starting to sound like a bot now  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 29, 2021, 06:59:31 PM
I cringe every time I read a news story that refers to "US 25 East" when they obviously mean "US 25E."
I don't know about that. This seems like persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness, given that the E stands for east.

Does it, though? If it's carried in the books as "25E" rather than "25 East", even though the letter may have been chosen because it is the east branch, it isn't an actual abbreviation for "25 East", so the expansion would be wrong.

This is pretty much what I mean by persnicketiness for the sake of persnicketiness.


ETA: That said, just for the record, the 1927 list of US Highways, the first I could find, identifies the highways in question (and all other divided routes) thusly:

(https://i.imgur.com/t7g4WG7.png) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r92oWQ3Uv7j1JOTkp5-PI3dHiYx6A36n/view)
Click image for the full list.

So, the "may have been chosen" language that you use, I think, can be strengthened a bit.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2021, 01:02:11 PM
So, then, where are the commas on the road signs?  :-D

North Carolina used to use dashes between the numbers and letters on some of its 19E (19-E) and 19W (19-W) postings, as well as some of its xxA (xx-A) signage.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on June 30, 2021, 04:18:46 PM
So, then, where are the commas on the road signs?  :-D

North Carolina used to use dashes between the numbers and letters on some of its 19E (19-E) and 19W (19-W) postings, as well as some of its xxA (xx-A) signage.

CA, in pre-'64 DOH days, simply appended an "E" or "W" after the "99" on 3-digit wide shields, treating the suffix as just another number.  This was true on both the old enameled shields with the state name above a horizontal line and the later larger enamel or reflectorized shields (1953 and post-1958 issue respectively) with a simple US above the number.  Apparently some states actually placed the suffix below the number (like the old Gousha map symbols); these must have been long gone prior to my cross-country traveling spree in the 1980's, since I never saw examples in the field. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on June 30, 2021, 04:21:28 PM
he's starting to sound like a bot now  :-D

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2021, 06:07:56 PM
he's starting to sound like a bot now  :-D

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

Unless the forum software has changed, it still shows that the poster has posted; the post is just hidden. I've done that a few times and ended up un-ignoring the poster because morbid curiosity would always get the better of me and I'd click to see what they had posted.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 01, 2021, 08:24:01 AM
he's starting to sound like a bot now  :-D

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

I have been in and through Indiana several times.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on July 01, 2021, 09:48:41 AM
he's starting to sound like a bot now  :-D

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

I have been in and through Indiana several times.

We get it. You don't like I-69. You have posted as such since you joined AARoads in 2013.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Daniel Fiddler on August 20, 2021, 02:04:43 PM
he's starting to sound like a bot now  :-D

The troll has shown up in at least 3 different Indiana-related threads despite seeming to know very little about Indiana. I've put him on ignore and I think all of these threads would be much more enjoyable if everyone else would do the same.

I have been in and through Indiana several times.

We get it. You don't like I-69. You have posted as such since you joined AARoads in 2013.

I don’t get why anyone would be against this connection of I-69, even if they were vehemently against every other portion.  I-69 is already built is Kentucky except for said bridge and approach and 80% built in Indiana.  US 41 needs relief.  Why oppose this segment?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on August 20, 2021, 02:53:10 PM
^ Because US-41 and I-70 was an "adequate" connection between Indianapolis and Evansville.

IMO, it's a very reasonable highway connection to the system. I-69 also provided four lane access between Evansville and Bloomington which did not previously exist, and upgraded Bloomington to Indianapolis which needed it regardless due to high traffic volumes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mrose on August 20, 2021, 11:51:46 PM
I'd think even the most modest layman would see a proposed interstate on a map between Evansville and Indianapolis via Bloomington and think it makes quite a lot of sense.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on August 21, 2021, 01:22:02 AM
As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 21, 2021, 12:05:49 PM
^ Because US-41 and I-70 was an "adequate" connection between Indianapolis and Evansville.

IMO, it's a very reasonable highway connection to the system. I-69 also provided four lane access between Evansville and Bloomington which did not previously exist, and upgraded Bloomington to Indianapolis which needed it regardless due to high traffic volumes.

INDOT already had plans to upgrade SR-37 to a full freeway between Indy and Bloomington before the I-69 extension came into the picture. It only made sense to continue I-69 over new terrain to tie into (the former) I-164 outside of E-Ville.

Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on August 21, 2021, 12:42:14 PM
Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

If it's eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the state will have no choice but to look at options to keep it open, advertise for an individual or organization to relocate it at no purchase cost (but relocation at their expense), and if the first 2 are unsuccessful, to make measurements and photos for the National Archives before removing/demolishing the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 21, 2021, 11:00:18 PM
IMO, it's a very reasonable highway connection to the system. I-69 also provided four lane access between Evansville and Bloomington which did not previously exist, and upgraded Bloomington to Indianapolis which needed it regardless due to high traffic volumes.

Using the US 41 corridor would have helped start a more direct, higher quality Chicago - Nashville corridor - something that would be nice to have right now with the closures in Indianapolis and that work zone is causing all the fatal wrecks on I-24 near the Ohio River Bridge.  Though I think routing I-69 via Bloomington was better than adding more traffic to I-70, and IMHO Bloomington could have used better access from the south.





Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 22, 2021, 02:23:27 AM
Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

If it's eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the state will have no choice but to look at options to keep it open, advertise for an individual or organization to relocate it at no purchase cost (but relocation at their expense), and if the first 2 are unsuccessful, to make measurements and photos for the National Archives before removing/demolishing the bridge.

For whatever reason, they're talking about keeping the older bridge and doing away with the 1960s-era newer bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on August 22, 2021, 11:50:13 AM
For whatever reason, they're talking about keeping the older bridge and doing away with the 1960s-era newer bridge.

I'm not sure what the case is here. Anything over 50 years old is potentially "historically significant" which would also include the newer bridge, but just because something is old doesn't mean it is eligible for the NRHP. That's where the historic review comes into play. If there were two bridges, one being historically significant and the other not significant, and they were both in about the same shape, it would be more difficult, but not impossible, to justify removing the historic one and keeping the non-historic one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 22, 2021, 02:54:42 PM
I believe upthread it also states that the older bridge is actually in better condition and less expensive to maintain.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on August 23, 2021, 12:01:46 AM
As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

This sounds like some Evansville born-and-raised conspiratin'. I've never heard that Indiana had to build the canal from TH to Evansville because Jackson vetoed the lock and dam; Indiana built it anyway soonafter, right? The Cross-Cut Canal and the old main line of the Central Canal were built because Indiana didn't want Illinois to reap any of the benefits of the canal from TH north, say, a metropolis at Shawneetown - so they built it inland toward White River.

I'd guess that state politicians didn't support bills for SW Indiana because until the collapse of the old mining and industrial economy, SW Indiana was reliably Democratic in a heavily Republican state. Once the mining unions lost their clout, one by one the counties went Republican, so that even Vigo County, the ultimate swing county, swang hard for Trump 2020 and missed.

The problem with I-69 south of Bloomington is that almost no one uses it. Traffic counts are very low, I've driven it many times. It really helps when I'm going from Vincennes to Bloomington, which I used to do a lot; there was really no good way to get from Evansville or Vincennes to Bloomington before 69. But its also among the least populated part of the state, traversing such icons as Odon and Oakland City.

(If you can ever drive through Odon, please do - it is the creepiest town I've ever visited - everything looks like it's from 1960 and in absolute mint condition...not one house overgrown or vacant...a time capsule.)

Yes, it does help Bloomington access points southwest, but the Indy-Evansville traffic already was pretty light, and yes, did follow 41-70 almost always. A few hundred million invested in interchanges and bypasses would have really meant little difference between 41-70 and new terrain 69 for the EVV-IND traffic. But as much as Bloomington resisted the highway, it was constructed for Bton and the Crane Naval Weapons Center. Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on August 23, 2021, 05:49:52 AM
Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.

Bloomington is very likely still a growing community. They would have gone up from the 2010 count if the Census had been conducted in February and not April of 2020.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2021, 10:09:33 AM
As one who worked as a census enumerator back in my college days, in this century the count has always referenced April 1 as the date it actually takes place.  That being said -- hard-to-count locations, including group living facilities, are tackled by dedicated groups between mid-January and late March of the census year, so the IU dorms (and frat/sorority houses for that matter) would have likely been canvassed during that period. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on August 23, 2021, 11:08:49 AM
As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

This sounds like some Evansville born-and-raised conspiratin'. I've never heard that Indiana had to build the canal from TH to Evansville because Jackson vetoed the lock and dam; Indiana built it anyway soonafter, right? The Cross-Cut Canal and the old main line of the Central Canal were built because Indiana didn't want Illinois to reap any of the benefits of the canal from TH north, say, a metropolis at Shawneetown - so they built it inland toward White River.

I'd guess that state politicians didn't support bills for SW Indiana because until the collapse of the old mining and industrial economy, SW Indiana was reliably Democratic in a heavily Republican state. Once the mining unions lost their clout, one by one the counties went Republican, so that even Vigo County, the ultimate swing county, swang hard for Trump 2020 and missed.

The problem with I-69 south of Bloomington is that almost no one uses it. Traffic counts are very low, I've driven it many times. It really helps when I'm going from Vincennes to Bloomington, which I used to do a lot; there was really no good way to get from Evansville or Vincennes to Bloomington before 69. But its also among the least populated part of the state, traversing such icons as Odon and Oakland City.

(If you can ever drive through Odon, please do - it is the creepiest town I've ever visited - everything looks like it's from 1960 and in absolute mint condition...not one house overgrown or vacant...a time capsule.)

Yes, it does help Bloomington access points southwest, but the Indy-Evansville traffic already was pretty light, and yes, did follow 41-70 almost always. A few hundred million invested in interchanges and bypasses would have really meant little difference between 41-70 and new terrain 69 for the EVV-IND traffic. But as much as Bloomington resisted the highway, it was constructed for Bton and the Crane Naval Weapons Center. Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.
My suspicions are that there'll be no significant increase in traffic until I-69 is completed all the way to Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2021, 01:07:29 PM
As discussed in the New Harmony Toll Bridge thread......southwestern Indiana seemed to get the short stick on strategic infrastructure projects dating back to before the Civil War. Since Andrew Jackson vetoed the $20,000 Grand Rapids Dam and lock in 1826 it forced Indiana to build a canal to Evansville instead.

When the canal forced Indiana to near bankruptcy, New York bankers wanted nothing to do with the southwest end of the state. Even as late as the 1980's, Indianapolis politicians constantly vetoed bills for SW Indiana.

Mitch Daniels changed it when I-69 happened.

This sounds like some Evansville born-and-raised conspiratin'. I've never heard that Indiana had to build the canal from TH to Evansville because Jackson vetoed the lock and dam; Indiana built it anyway soonafter, right? The Cross-Cut Canal and the old main line of the Central Canal were built because Indiana didn't want Illinois to reap any of the benefits of the canal from TH north, say, a metropolis at Shawneetown - so they built it inland toward White River.

I'd guess that state politicians didn't support bills for SW Indiana because until the collapse of the old mining and industrial economy, SW Indiana was reliably Democratic in a heavily Republican state. Once the mining unions lost their clout, one by one the counties went Republican, so that even Vigo County, the ultimate swing county, swang hard for Trump 2020 and missed.

The problem with I-69 south of Bloomington is that almost no one uses it. Traffic counts are very low, I've driven it many times. It really helps when I'm going from Vincennes to Bloomington, which I used to do a lot; there was really no good way to get from Evansville or Vincennes to Bloomington before 69. But its also among the least populated part of the state, traversing such icons as Odon and Oakland City.

(If you can ever drive through Odon, please do - it is the creepiest town I've ever visited - everything looks like it's from 1960 and in absolute mint condition...not one house overgrown or vacant...a time capsule.)

Yes, it does help Bloomington access points southwest, but the Indy-Evansville traffic already was pretty light, and yes, did follow 41-70 almost always. A few hundred million invested in interchanges and bypasses would have really meant little difference between 41-70 and new terrain 69 for the EVV-IND traffic. But as much as Bloomington resisted the highway, it was constructed for Bton and the Crane Naval Weapons Center. Bloomington is one of the few consistently growing regional cities in Indiana (this last decade excepted), so for that reason, I-69 did perhaps make some sense, even if the decade it was finally complete is the decade Bloomington stopped growing. Hmmmm.
My suspicions are that there'll be no significant increase in traffic until I-69 is completed all the way to Memphis.

Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on August 24, 2021, 01:40:36 PM
Concerning the US-41 southbound bridge over the Ohio River, I suspect that KYTC will not go through the trouble of trying to find a buyer. More than likely, it'll be imploded, meeting the same demise that many of the old truss bridges over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers faced when they reached their end of life.

If it's eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the state will have no choice but to look at options to keep it open, advertise for an individual or organization to relocate it at no purchase cost (but relocation at their expense), and if the first 2 are unsuccessful, to make measurements and photos for the National Archives before removing/demolishing the bridge.

For whatever reason, they're talking about keeping the older bridge and doing away with the 1960s-era newer bridge.

From all the reports I'd read on it, the SB bridge has a lot more problems than the NB, including the fracture-critical steel, recurring deck issues, etc. The old one was built better.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on August 24, 2021, 07:25:07 PM


Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was needed Indy to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2021, 09:14:26 PM


Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was need to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

There's really no reason to; I-69 in IN is, in the parlance, a fait accompli, regardless of the current or even projected traffic flow.  Any improvement to US 231 south of Crane will be for the benefit of local traffic, not to provide a more efficient pathway to I-69 (although that may occur in any case).  The existing I-69 south of Martinsville  is at present functionally isolated; as stated previously, there should be a significant uptick in overall volume once the final section connecting to I-465 is completed.  Building the Ohio River bridge will probably help -- but more for corridor PR purposes than anything resembling a massive hike in route efficiency.  But when the full Indy-Dyersburg facility is in operation as a singular unit, there will likely be a further ramping up of volume -- which, if heading to Memphis, might result in a corresponding increase in traffic -- and congestion -- through the towns along the unfinished US 51 stretch north of Memphis.  Whether that would prompt TDOT to either redouble their efforts to build out that segment as originally planned or simply scrap that concept and select another route farther away from the problematic wetlands remains to be seen.   
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on August 24, 2021, 10:19:26 PM
there should be a significant uptick in overall volume once the final section connecting to I-465 is completed.  Building the Ohio River bridge will probably help -- but more for corridor PR purposes than anything resembling a massive hike in route efficiency.  But when the full Indy-Dyersburg facility is in operation as a singular unit, there will likely be a further ramping up of volume -- 

I'm curious what "uptick" you think will occur after completion to 465...double to 14,000 north of Odon?

And how much of a "ramp up" when complete to 155?

I think numbers are important by "uptick" you could mean 1,000 (15% increase) or 10,000 extra vehicles per day; same with "ramp up."

I'm not sure that I-69 is serving anything but "local traffic" from your perspective...."local traffic" from Bloomington to Indy and from Oakland City to Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2021, 03:40:56 AM
there should be a significant uptick in overall volume once the final section connecting to I-465 is completed.  Building the Ohio River bridge will probably help -- but more for corridor PR purposes than anything resembling a massive hike in route efficiency.  But when the full Indy-Dyersburg facility is in operation as a singular unit, there will likely be a further ramping up of volume -- 

I'm curious what "uptick" you think will occur after completion to 465...double to 14,000 north of Odon?

And how much of a "ramp up" when complete to 155?

I think numbers are important by "uptick" you could mean 1,000 (15% increase) or 10,000 extra vehicles per day; same with "ramp up."

I'm not sure that I-69 is serving anything but "local traffic" from your perspective...."local traffic" from Bloomington to Indy and from Oakland City to Evansville.

I'm guesstimating (it's all speculation at this time) that the "uptick" would be in the order of 20-25% over current usage on any I-69 segment from Indy to Dyersburg, primarily because the main "body" of the corridor could be directly accessed at either end (Martinsville>465 is preventing that on the northern end, and Troy>Fulton doing the same on the south end).  Commercial traffic tends to prefer continuity, seeking out alternative routes if the connections are incomplete, resulting in a PITA situation (detours, heavily signalized interim facilities).  As several posters have pointed out, 70/57/55 remains a viable route from Indy to Memphis, arguably the route of choice prior to much of I-69 between those points being completed.  The reality is that I-69 is only marginally shorter; its saving grace is that it isn't seeing a lot of use as of yet, although it appears that some commercial traffic is shifting that way.  Also, the composite route via Effingham and Sikeston is over older Interstate sections, some of which warrants expansion that has yet to occur (possibly due to funding diversion to the I-69 project).

As far as the "ramping up" concept goes, that is a time rather than percentage value -- how long it'll take I-69 to get to the 20-25% overall traffic increase.  I'd guess 3-4 years after completion Dyersburg-Indy, including the bridge.  A second factor would be the level of tolls on the Ohio River bridge -- if they're reasonable enough, especially for commercial vehicles, the estimation above would probably be valid; if it's decided to make an attempt to zero out the bridge costs in as short a time as possible via a substantial toll level the "ramp-up" might take an extra few years. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 25, 2021, 08:09:28 AM
connecting one of the states largest cities with its capital is justification enough. 67 is a waste of money because it connects nothing but a bunch of small towns.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on August 25, 2021, 08:19:34 AM


Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was need to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

If you're building a new road from scratch, what's the cost difference between a regular four lane highway and a freeway? I wouldn't think it would be all that much, so might as well make it a freeway even if it isn't absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 25, 2021, 09:06:29 AM


Traffic, particularly of the commercial variety, will probably increase somewhat once I-69 is fully completed as far south as Dyersburg and I-155, only because more than a little bit of that is heading directly to Texas, so a 155/55/40 route over to LR will be viable, as it would bypass Memphis.  But the one thing that will almost definitely increase any overall traffic flow on I-69 in SW IN and in KY would be the upcoming completion right to I-465 at Indy, providing an efficient and direct traffic source/outlet for the corridor.  Now -- I-69 traffic intending to go right to Memphis is still going to have to either take the long way around via I-155 or slog down US 51 in the interim; that's a TDOT issue best taken up with them.

I just looked at traffic counts...my goodness they are low - less than 7,000 north of Odon!  Only 25% are commercial so those numbers better double to show any justification. Why did Indiana sink Billions for that? I can see that "interstate" grade highway was need to Bloomington but is seems the rest could have been regular 4-lane. US 231 between Owensboro and I-64 carries more traffic. I don't think any one on the board will see I-69 go to Memphis.

I say all this partly in jest because of all the haters regarding Jasper's efforts behind "I-67." It seems to me I-69 proponents should be pushing for a Jasper connection to I-69 to get those numbers up.

If you're building a new road from scratch, what's the cost difference between a regular four lane highway and a freeway? I wouldn't think it would be all that much, so might as well make it a freeway even if it isn't absolutely necessary.

There are some significant cost differences between a 4-lane highway (assumed to be non-access controlled) versus a freeway with full access control. The short answer is a freeway will typically be more expensive than a 4-lane highway with partial or no access control, because of the added cost of interchanges, bridges and overpasses, and frontage roads in places along a freeway that wouldn't be required along a 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections and driveway access to adjacent properties.

The cost difference will be lower for rural areas, but that difference will increase as the roadway enters a more developed/urbanized area where there are a greater number of intersecting roads and developed properties adjacent to the highway.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on August 25, 2021, 10:28:49 AM
There are some significant cost differences between a 4-lane highway (assumed to be non-access controlled) versus a freeway with full access control. The short answer is a freeway will typically be more expensive than a 4-lane highway with partial or no access control, because of the added cost of interchanges, bridges and overpasses, and frontage roads in places along a freeway that wouldn't be required along a 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections and driveway access to adjacent properties.

The cost difference will be lower for rural areas, but that difference will increase as the roadway enters a more developed/urbanized area where there are a greater number of intersecting roads and developed properties adjacent to the highway.

Just out of curiosity I looked at the EIS for I-39 between Normal and Oglesby, IL (completed in 1992) and found that the difference between the E-85 expressway alternative and the freeway Recommended Alternative was about 4%. Granted that the expressway alternative included some interchanges on busier roads. A lot of minor roads crossing the freeway were dead ended rather than intersections developed, so there were some cost savings there. Also, they built the freeway on a half section line, allowing access to most properties from either side, eliminating the need for most frontage roads. So it all depends on the situation, with the I-39 example likely to be a "best case" comparison to justify a freeway vs. an expressway.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on August 25, 2021, 11:43:47 AM
There are some significant cost differences between a 4-lane highway (assumed to be non-access controlled) versus a freeway with full access control. The short answer is a freeway will typically be more expensive than a 4-lane highway with partial or no access control, because of the added cost of interchanges, bridges and overpasses, and frontage roads in places along a freeway that wouldn't be required along a 4-lane highway with at-grade intersections and driveway access to adjacent properties.
For a new location facility, access control would’ve most likely been used regardless. So a limited access right of way would’ve been needed regardless, along with frontage roads in areas. A true expressway design would also be used, so interchanges at high volume crossings or where a signal would be required, as well, in order to have a free flowing facility. For lower volume intersections, this is where cost savings would be seen the most with having intersections vs. overpasses or in some cases interchanges. But the cost difference likely isn’t major. And there’s more benefit in the sense of having a full freeway design for a corridor like this - connecting two major cities in the state, apart of a future interstate corridor, etc. So Indiana went ahead and built it as a fully controlled access freeway facility.

Quote
The cost difference will be lower for rural areas, but that difference will increase as the roadway enters a more developed/urbanized area where there are a greater number of intersecting roads and developed properties adjacent to the highway.
Generally, if maintaining a modern expressway / free flow design, you would want to have that sense of access control and limiting busier intersections, so I couldn’t see much more being done. I’d imagine even if Evansville to Bloomington was built as an at-grade expressway vs. interstate highway, the section from Bloomington to Indianapolis would still be freeway. Also taking into account much higher traffic volumes that would truly warrant that grade separation and limiting access points.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on September 22, 2021, 10:23:32 PM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/feis-rod-complete/

Quote
Henderson, Ky. (September 22, 2021) — The environmental study for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) is now complete, which will allow Section 1 construction to begin.

I-69 ORX is divided into two sections for construction. I-69 ORX Section 1 focuses on improvements in Henderson and extends from KY 425 to US 60. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is overseeing the Section 1 project with construction expected to begin in early 2022 and continue through 2025.

I-69 ORX Section 2 is a bistate project between Indiana and Kentucky that will complete the I-69 connection from US 60 in Henderson to I-69 in Evansville. It includes the new river crossing. Design is expected to begin in 2025 with construction anticipated to begin in 2027 and continue through 2031. Both states continue to look for opportunities to accelerate that timeline.

The last steps of the environmental study were the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for large, federally-funded projects.

The FEIS identifies Central Alternative 1B Modified as the Selected Alternative. It includes a four-lane I-69 bridge and retains one US 41 bridge for local traffic. It includes 11.2 miles of new interstate, including 8.4 miles on new terrain and 2.8 miles of upgrades to US 41. Only the I-69 bridge will be tolled. The ROD is issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and signifies final approval of the Selected Alternative.

FEIS located at: https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/feis-rod/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 22, 2021, 11:01:15 PM
Nice but hopefully funding can be found to expedite section 2.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 22, 2021, 11:20:51 PM
Still an absolutely stupid idea to eliminate one of the US 41 twin bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 23, 2021, 08:20:55 AM
Still an absolutely stupid idea to eliminate one of the US 41 twin bridges.

i agree. but it's all about the money here. if money were no object, they would replace both 41 bridges and have 1 new 69 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on September 23, 2021, 09:31:14 AM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/feis-rod-complete/

Quote
Henderson, Ky. (September 22, 2021) — The environmental study for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) is now complete, which will allow Section 1 construction to begin.

I-69 ORX is divided into two sections for construction. I-69 ORX Section 1 focuses on improvements in Henderson and extends from KY 425 to US 60. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is overseeing the Section 1 project with construction expected to begin in early 2022 and continue through 2025.

I-69 ORX Section 2 is a bistate project between Indiana and Kentucky that will complete the I-69 connection from US 60 in Henderson to I-69 in Evansville. It includes the new river crossing. Design is expected to begin in 2025 with construction anticipated to begin in 2027 and continue through 2031. Both states continue to look for opportunities to accelerate that timeline.

The last steps of the environmental study were the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for large, federally-funded projects.

The FEIS identifies Central Alternative 1B Modified as the Selected Alternative. It includes a four-lane I-69 bridge and retains one US 41 bridge for local traffic. It includes 11.2 miles of new interstate, including 8.4 miles on new terrain and 2.8 miles of upgrades to US 41. Only the I-69 bridge will be tolled. The ROD is issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and signifies final approval of the Selected Alternative.

FEIS located at: https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/feis-rod/

Nice to see real progress and a date to start some construction (at least as far north as the US 60Interchange).

Map showing sections 1 and 2 from the website:

(https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/I-69-ORX-Project-Map-1583x2048.png)

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 23, 2021, 12:21:31 PM
Still an absolutely stupid idea to eliminate one of the US 41 twin bridges.

i agree. but it's all about the money here. if money were no object, they would replace both 41 bridges and have 1 new 69 bridge.

No need to replace both bridges. They've both had deck work and painting in recent years. And remember, they're demolishing the newer bridge and keeping the older bridge, which is narrower and ... well .... older.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Ryctor2018 on September 23, 2021, 05:52:39 PM
I would have thought the timeline would be slightly quicker. Section 1 start/end: 2022-2024. Section 2 start/end: 2025-2029. Maybe the new infrastructure bill will speed up the timeline.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 24, 2021, 08:35:09 AM
Well this should make it 'shovel ready' to tap into that potential funding stream.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on September 24, 2021, 11:06:59 AM
Speaking of paint, whoever had the painting contract for bridges in the western half of the state... sucked. The paint isn't more than a decade ago and it's already wearing down to the primer.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 24, 2021, 01:15:32 PM
Speaking of paint, whoever had the painting contract for bridges in the western half of the state... sucked. The paint isn't more than a decade ago and it's already wearing down to the primer.

Yeah, they had some issues and had to have some of the bridges repainted -- possibly at the contractors' expense.

I predict that the removal of one of the US 41 bridges will bite them in the backside. The new I-69 bridge will be easy to shunpike; a lot easier than the I-65 spans in Louisville. I think the traffic demand for a free crossing will overwhelm the single two-lane span, especially since they're keeping the older one.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on September 24, 2021, 01:56:52 PM
It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. I'll post my aerials of the I-65 and I-265 toll bridges soon (when I am back at home), but it was a night-and-day difference in traffic levels for a weekday. Traffic was heavy on I-265 whereas I-65 was... quite empty. In comparison to I-65, the US 31 Clark Memorial Bridge was bumper-to-bumper into Indiana from Louisville.

Traffic will shunpike if there is a close alternative but I-265 really does have an advantage to providing those easterly connections.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on September 24, 2021, 02:45:39 PM
Speaking of paint, whoever had the painting contract for bridges in the western half of the state... sucked. The paint isn't more than a decade ago and it's already wearing down to the primer.

Yeah, they had some issues and had to have some of the bridges repainted -- possibly at the contractors' expense.

I predict that the removal of one of the US 41 bridges will bite them in the backside. The new I-69 bridge will be easy to shunpike; a lot easier than the I-65 spans in Louisville. I think the traffic demand for a free crossing will overwhelm the single two-lane span, especially since they're keeping the older one.

I keep wondering if they might do something (adding traffic lights, lowering speed limits, etc.,) to make the shunpike route take more time to get through.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: WKDAVE on September 24, 2021, 04:50:00 PM
Speaking of paint, whoever had the painting contract for bridges in the western half of the state... sucked. The paint isn't more than a decade ago and it's already wearing down to the primer.

Yeah, they had some issues and had to have some of the bridges repainted -- possibly at the contractors' expense.

I predict that the removal of one of the US 41 bridges will bite them in the backside. The new I-69 bridge will be easy to shunpike; a lot easier than the I-65 spans in Louisville. I think the traffic demand for a free crossing will overwhelm the single two-lane span, especially since they're keeping the older one.

The ease of shunpiking is the very reason they have to make it as difficult ("costly") as possible. Otherwise there would be no toll traffic to pay off the bonds. It was either that or toll all bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: JREwing78 on September 25, 2021, 04:56:11 PM
Speaking of paint, whoever had the painting contract for bridges in the western half of the state... sucked. The paint isn't more than a decade ago and it's already wearing down to the primer.

Yeah, they had some issues and had to have some of the bridges repainted -- possibly at the contractors' expense.

I predict that the removal of one of the US 41 bridges will bite them in the backside. The new I-69 bridge will be easy to shunpike; a lot easier than the I-65 spans in Louisville. I think the traffic demand for a free crossing will overwhelm the single two-lane span, especially since they're keeping the older one.

I keep wondering if they might do something (adding traffic lights, lowering speed limits, etc.,) to make the shunpike route take more time to get through.

Henderson certainly will have that open door to redevelop its commercial strip. Will Henderson need to make decisions for it's development and street network based solely on the need for non-residents to continue to use US-41 as a shunpike? It does not.

Once the new I-69 bridges are in place, Henderson's free to make decisions to make its commercial strip a better shopping destination and more pedestrian and cyclist friendly, including introducing a park-like median and actual sidewalks and bike paths along US-41 to beautify it and make it safer and more pleasurable for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate.

It may also mean speed limits and signal timing that doesn't have to optimize throughput on US-41 at the expense of the side streets. US-41 won't need to be a 45-mph roadway anymore - it could be a 30 mph roadway, making it easier for business patrons in vehicles or on foot to navigate the area.

US-41 and US-60 certainly wouldn't need a cloverleaf interchange anymore - it could easily be realigned and downgraded to something more appropriate for an urban area and free up space for business or residential use. They could also realign the roadways to provide more straightforward N-S connectivity between the northern and southern areas of Henderson, seeing as there's only one through street directly connecting these areas now.

If traffic levels truly demand 4 lanes of traffic on US-41 following the opening of the I-69 bridges, that's an indication of either a road network design failure or excessive tolling making the I-69 bridges unattractive. 2 lanes are sufficient to maintain redundancy in the case of a I-69 closure. Make the out-of-town folks too cheap to pay tolls to stay on I-69 work for it a little.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2021, 05:04:02 PM
Henderson actually can't do any of the above unless the state cedes control of US 41 to the city -- and to the county, if the section north of the river where Ellis Park is located isn't within the city limits.

I haven't really explored a lot of Henderson, but that strip really isn't the major commercial area of town. It's geared more to highway businesses -- restaurants, gas stations, and hotels -- the best I can tell. It's not the primary retail area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on September 26, 2021, 01:38:46 AM
From the Ohio River south on US-41 it is divided 4 lane ROW until you hit the Henderson city limits where it narrows to a fourlane with a center left turn median.

The speed in the divided section is 55, comes down to 50 for a little while and then is 45  through most of the city limits until it becomes divided highway again.

The lights are already timed through the area, so I just see a re-timing.

But looking at the businesses in that small area, I would say half the number of gas stations will go out of business or move out to the new US-60 interchange and hotels (especially the franchised ones) will begin their decline as each operator sells off and relocates, again to the US-60 interchange.

The fast food locales on US-41 will follow the hotels and within 5 years after the bridge opens, they will revert to their eventual ethnic food replacements.

Obviously one of the approaches to the newer span will be demolished, so this might be a good time for Henderson to perform some urban renewal and get rid of the current pavement arrangement and build out some sort of boulevard with a curbed/tree filled median with left turn bays.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 26, 2021, 10:06:20 AM
the section through henderson isn't even us 41 anymore, it's just us 60 and "alt 41". they could just get rid of that road as a state route and through 60 onto 425 and co sign 60 up to the cloverleaf.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 26, 2021, 09:08:14 PM
the section through henderson isn't even us 41 anymore, it's just us 60 and "alt 41". they could just get rid of that road as a state route and through 60 onto 425 and co sign 60 up to the cloverleaf.

Are you referring to what Owensboro did with US 60; routing it onto the bypass and turning the downtown route over to the city?

US 41 was rerouted onto 425 over to the freeway, as that is the present terminus of I-69. US 41 continues on the old Pennyrile Parkway alignment through the US 60/Alternate 41 interchange and on to the bridge.

At any rate, the "strip" section of Henderson is along US 41, well out of the downtown area.

This map: https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Henderson_city.pdf indicates that the city limits on the north extend to a point between Racetrack and Stratman roads, then runs along the US 41 ROW and then along Wolf Hills Road at the edge of John James Audubon State Park. The bridges and Ellis Park are not within the city limits. If the state ceded US 41 to local control in this area, the county would have to take over the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 26, 2021, 09:10:10 PM
the section through henderson isn't even us 41 anymore, it's just us 60 and "alt 41". they could just get rid of that road as a state route and through 60 onto 425 and co sign 60 up to the cloverleaf.

Are you referring to what Owensboro did with US 60; routing it onto the bypass and turning the downtown route over to the city?

US 41 was rerouted onto 425 over to the freeway, as that is the present terminus of I-69. US 41 continues on the old Pennyrile Parkway alignment through the US 60/Alternate 41 interchange and on to the bridge.

At any rate, the "strip" section of Henderson is along US 41, well out of the downtown area.

This map: https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Henderson_city.pdf indicates that the city limits on the north extend to a point between Racetrack and Stratman roads, then runs along the US 41 ROW and then along Wolf Hills Road at the edge of John James Audubon State Park. The bridges and Ellis Park are not within the city limits. If the state ceded US 41 to local control in this area, the county would have to take over the bridge.
Basically, but i didn't realize the strip extended north of the cloverleaf my mistake.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 27, 2021, 12:05:26 PM
the section through henderson isn't even us 41 anymore, it's just us 60 and "alt 41". they could just get rid of that road as a state route and through 60 onto 425 and co sign 60 up to the cloverleaf.

Are you referring to what Owensboro did with US 60; routing it onto the bypass and turning the downtown route over to the city?

US 41 was rerouted onto 425 over to the freeway, as that is the present terminus of I-69. US 41 continues on the old Pennyrile Parkway alignment through the US 60/Alternate 41 interchange and on to the bridge.

At any rate, the "strip" section of Henderson is along US 41, well out of the downtown area.

This map: https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Henderson_city.pdf indicates that the city limits on the north extend to a point between Racetrack and Stratman roads, then runs along the US 41 ROW and then along Wolf Hills Road at the edge of John James Audubon State Park. The bridges and Ellis Park are not within the city limits. If the state ceded US 41 to local control in this area, the county would have to take over the bridge.
Basically, but i didn't realize the strip extended north of the cloverleaf my mistake.

Actually the locals refer to the section between the cloverleaf and the bridges as "the strip." The concurrent section of US 60 and Alternate US 41 is called Green Street. KY 351 (2nd Street) is the dividing line between South Green and North Green.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on September 27, 2021, 12:22:31 PM
Since no county wants to have the responsibility for a bridge over the Ohio, I still think that it would be a decent compromise to rebadge the current "strip" part of 41 to become Alt 41, and it could run up to Waterworks Road on the north side of the bridge.  That's the state line, and since Indiana doesn't like alternate or suffixed US routes, they could simply label the exit "to Alt 41" at Veteran's Memorial Parkway and current US41. I'm going to expect that the city of Evansville will not want to receive responsibility for the current US41 through town so that INDOT can reroute the road completely on I-64 and then down I-69 on the east side of EVV, so US41 will go over the bridge from that short stub of I-69 west of the new bridge approach.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 27, 2021, 03:43:10 PM
I don't think there will be any move to reroute US 41 onto the toll bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on September 27, 2021, 04:15:21 PM
I don't think there will be any move to reroute US 41 onto the toll bridge.

Isn't there something about US highways not being allowed on toll roads/bridges? I know about US412 in OK and those toll bridges along the PA-NJ border, so I'm not sure if that rule is enforced anymore or not.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on September 27, 2021, 05:06:57 PM
US-17 Veterans Bridge in Chesapeake, VA was recently built as a toll bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on September 27, 2021, 06:33:47 PM
I don't think there will be any move to reroute US 41 onto the toll bridge.

Isn't there something about US highways not being allowed on toll roads/bridges? I know about US412 in OK and those toll bridges along the PA-NJ border, so I'm not sure if that rule is enforced anymore or not.
US 301 in Delaware is on a new Toll Road segment. US 51 in Northern IL is along the Jane Addams Tollway between Rockford and just before the WI state line. Plenty of US Routes that go across Toll Bridges, and some that utilize Ferrys that charge to cross, as well
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 27, 2021, 06:42:40 PM
i think the rule is it's ok if there's a free route nearby.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on September 27, 2021, 09:05:11 PM
Since US numbered routes are just glorified state routes with a continuous numbering system across state lines, and the same general style of route marker no matter what state you're in, and the program is administered by a voluntary association (AASHTO) with no statutory systemwide standards the way there are for Interstates via FHWA, there are no legal prohibitions on signing a US route on a toll facility (to my knowledge.)

Examples: Bear Mountain (US 6) and Mid-Hudson (US 44) bridges in New York, and US 13 (Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel) in Virginia.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on September 28, 2021, 09:11:06 AM
Since US numbered routes are just glorified state routes with a continuous numbering system across state lines, and the same general style of route marker no matter what state you're in, and the program is administered by a voluntary association (AASHTO) with no statutory systemwide standards the way there are for Interstates via FHWA, there are no legal prohibitions on signing a US route on a toll facility (to my knowledge.)

Examples: Bear Mountain (US 6) and Mid-Hudson (US 44) bridges in New York, and US 13 (Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel) in Virginia.

 :hmmm: I wonder if the rule is, just always have a free alt in the event of a toll bridge? or this is just made up entirely  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on September 29, 2021, 06:34:54 PM
Getting off-topic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 08, 2021, 03:01:03 PM
It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on October 08, 2021, 03:12:03 PM
It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

it would be nice to have but useless in the grand scheme of things. noone would use it and nothing is on either side for it to connect to. evansville barely has any bike paths and i dont think henderson has any at all. and all of the articles examples have cities that abut the river on either side. not even close to the case here. would anyone even consider henderson a suburb of evansville?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 08, 2021, 04:15:42 PM
I mean you got to start somewhere right
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on October 08, 2021, 06:48:15 PM
I mean you got to start somewhere right

"If you build it, they will come"

<ducks and runs>
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 08, 2021, 07:01:59 PM
I mean you got to start somewhere right

"If you build it, they will come"

<ducks and runs>
Lol so we better not build it at all because we’ll induce demand and it’ll become clogged needing to be widened.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: evvroads on October 09, 2021, 04:49:08 AM
It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

it would be nice to have but useless in the grand scheme of things. noone would use it and nothing is on either side for it to connect to. evansville barely has any bike paths and i dont think henderson has any at all. and all of the articles examples have cities that abut the river on either side. not even close to the case here. would anyone even consider henderson a suburb of evansville?

I agree. Who would use it? It's going to be about 5 miles through farmland and floodplain from interchange to interchange on the new crossing. No one will walk that. Few would bike it. And there's no one walking or biking (that I've ever seen) between Evansville and Henderson right now to begin with. Any pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure will be almost entirely for recreational use, and that's not worth millions of dollars that could be spent upgrading other ped/bike infrastructure in both cities. The best chance for ped/bike on this project is maintaining the twin bridge they plan to demolish as a ped/bike bridge instead (if that's even possible for a much lower cost than maintaining it for motorized/commercial vehicle traffic - idk. I'm not an engineer), and I don't see that happening.

To give Evansville credit, they have been adding a lot of bike paths and accommodations in the past several years. I also just saw they are going to propose adopting a "complete streets" policy for all streets with a traffic count over 1000 cars/day at the next city council meeting.

I wouldn't really consider Henderson a suburb of Evansville any more than Mt Vernon or Haubstadt. IMO, the only true suburb of Evansville is Newburgh and I guess Darmstadt.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on October 09, 2021, 07:57:17 AM
It looks like the proposed pedestrian-bike might not happen with this project. I think all new major bridges should have pedestrian paths at minimum but I still maintain that a more direct bike path following the riverfront and US-41 from Downtown Henderson to Evansville is better for cyclists.

https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/costs-cited-as-cyclist-pedestrian-access-omitted-from-i-69-ohio-river-crossing

it would be nice to have but useless in the grand scheme of things. noone would use it and nothing is on either side for it to connect to. evansville barely has any bike paths and i dont think henderson has any at all. and all of the articles examples have cities that abut the river on either side. not even close to the case here. would anyone even consider henderson a suburb of evansville?

I agree. Who would use it? It's going to be about 5 miles through farmland and floodplain from interchange to interchange on the new crossing. No one will walk that. Few would bike it. And there's no one walking or biking (that I've ever seen) between Evansville and Henderson right now to begin with. Any pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure will be almost entirely for recreational use, and that's not worth millions of dollars that could be spent upgrading other ped/bike infrastructure in both cities. The best chance for ped/bike on this project is maintaining the twin bridge they plan to demolish as a ped/bike bridge instead (if that's even possible for a much lower cost than maintaining it for motorized/commercial vehicle traffic - idk. I'm not an engineer), and I don't see that happening.

To give Evansville credit, they have been adding a lot of bike paths and accommodations in the past several years. I also just saw they are going to propose adopting a "complete streets" policy for all streets with a traffic count over 1000 cars/day at the next city council meeting.

I wouldn't really consider Henderson a suburb of Evansville any more than Mt Vernon or Haubstadt. IMO, the only true suburb of Evansville is Newburgh and I guess Darmstadt.

"No one would ever use it"

A common refrain when bike or ped access is discussed in any urban or bridge design.

In fact several DOT's have tried to avoid it by claiming that bike/ped ways are illegal on interstate highways (wrong)

They only require the requisite separation.

When public agencies got the railroads to allow a cars to pass over long spans either by controlled sharing or by building a dedicated attachment, the railroads would always say "no one will use it" because back in 1910, not a lot of people had autos.

When the first rails-to-trails efforts started in the late 50's early 60's, many people would say "why?, no one will use it"

Now when public agencies build new bridges for autos and are asked to include bike/pedways we still say "why, no one will use it".

The Ohio Valley is very scenic and the Evansville Metro provides a vital connection between Indiana and Kentucky. They have been very adept at using public funds in ways to improve their accessibility, mobility and to support tourism.

To include a safe, usable passage for bikes and pedestrians or runners to cross the Ohio is completely rational and provides new options for the area.

For example, they could host a "Ohio River Run" 5k or 10k that crosses the bridge and back without any highway closures.

Southern Indiana is already well known as a great place for competitive bicycle training. This means the area could host a "Tour de Shawnee" regional race that includes a river crossing as part of it.

Personally, I think it would be really cool to ride my bike up to the peak of the bridge and watch barges pass under.

So if you look long term, I do believe there are ways to take advantage of the public investment.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on October 09, 2021, 03:31:52 PM
"No one would ever use it"? Just up US 41:

https://www.wthitv.com/content/news/New-walkway-open--574889161.html

New walkway already popular with folks on foot, bikes
Connector links Terre Haute, West T with a safe passageway
By Mark Bennett
Tribune-Star - West Terre Haute

 Jul 29, 2021

Cars and trucks zipped past on U.S. 150, but their noises seemed to fade into the background.

Instead, the sounds of natural critters filled my ears as I traversed the new pedestrian walkway between West Terre Haute and Terre Haute adjacent to the highway's south edge. The 1.1-mile path overlooks the Wabashiki Fish and Wildlife Area – a 2,700-acre wetlands habitat for a growing population of birds, animals, amphibians, fish, aquatic creatures, insects, trees and plants.

A walker or biker needs only to look southward to see it all.

It was enough to make me forget – at least momentarily – the July humidity and 90-degree heat. Egrets flew from trees to grassy islands. Birds perched on limbs dove into the water for fish. Sunlight sparkled on the ponds.

The connector between the two towns offers local folks and visitors a spectacular setting to walk, run, ride, bird-watch and snap photographs. The $6.1-million project – brewing for more than a decade, and discussed for far longer – got 80% of its funding from the federal and state governments, and 20% through Vigo County government. The resulting structure adds one other commodity, far more important – safety.

https://www.tribstar.com/news/news_columns/mark-bennett-new-walkway-already-popular-with-folks-on-foot-bikes/article_b33651d6-9949-5f29-b888-701c5bbce707.html

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: JREwing78 on October 09, 2021, 05:09:25 PM
I think a pedestrian crossing makes much more sense along the current US-41 corridor. But the opportunity to do it is best with this I-69 crossing. The chances that they would come up with enough funding for a ped/bike only bridge over the Ohio River are slim to none.

I would be interested in seeing what it would cost to retain the 1960's era bridge as a ped/bike connector. It would not receive the loading that vehicle traffic would put on it; presumably it would not have to be maintained to the same standards to remain safe for peds and bikes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on October 09, 2021, 09:31:45 PM
The Tappan Zee multi-use path is VERY popular, and it's a comparable length.  There are even people who walk the full length, although there's a shuttle, so people don't need to walk both ways.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on October 09, 2021, 10:24:08 PM
Who would use it?

Plenty. The East End Bridge for future Interstate 265 (currently SR 265) in Louisville features a bike/pedestrian path and is very popular in warmer months. I was flying over it the other week and saw a lot of folks enjoying the weather during the day with only a handful of access points. One was planned for the Interstate 65 northbound bridge but it was swapped for a dedicated path over an abandoned railroad crossing just east of it.

The Tappan Zee path is very popular (echoing vdeane's comments). At one particular sunset, the path had at least 100+ people on it just enjoying the views (as seen through my UAV).

We need to be approaching these projects from a multi-modal viewpoint. They need to be as accessible to as many people as possible, and adding a bike/pedestrian path is not going to be a financial dealbreaker.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on October 09, 2021, 10:45:26 PM
all of these examples provided the cities are immediately adjacent, this isnt even close to the case here. I think theyre saying the distance alone makes this useless.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: evvroads on October 10, 2021, 04:18:03 AM
and adding a bike/pedestrian path is not going to be a financial dealbreaker.

Apparently in this project it would be. They've already narrowed the shoulders to save money and remove any possibility of the bridge being expanded to 6 lanes in the future (which will be needed if an earthquake, barge strike, or other disaster ever renders the remaining twin bridge inoperable).

I'm not against the idea of ped/bike paths or bridges. Quite the opposite really. What I am against is spending millions of extra dollars on adding ped/bike access to an interstate bridge that's going to (1) overlook nothing but water, farmland, and floodplain, (2) be used almost entirely by a handful of recreational users, and (3) connect two cities that don't have adequate ped/bike infrastructure on either side to begin with. Those millions of dollars should instead be spent adding and upgrading ped/bike infrastructure to both cities where more people will get use out of it and where more people will be likely to use it as an actual transportation alternative. If money grew on trees, then I'm all for making I-69 a six lane bridge with full shoulders and ped/bike lanes, but that's just not the case.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on October 10, 2021, 05:43:14 PM
and adding a bike/pedestrian path is not going to be a financial dealbreaker.

Apparently in this project it would be. They've already narrowed the shoulders to save money and remove any possibility of the bridge being expanded to 6 lanes in the future (which will be needed if an earthquake, barge strike, or other disaster ever renders the remaining twin bridge inoperable).

I'm not against the idea of ped/bike paths or bridges. Quite the opposite really. What I am against is spending millions of extra dollars on adding ped/bike access to an interstate bridge that's going to (1) overlook nothing but water, farmland, and floodplain, (2) be used almost entirely by a handful of recreational users, and (3) connect two cities that don't have adequate ped/bike infrastructure on either side to begin with. Those millions of dollars should instead be spent adding and upgrading ped/bike infrastructure to both cities where more people will get use out of it and where more people will be likely to use it as an actual transportation alternative. If money grew on trees, then I'm all for making I-69 a six lane bridge with full shoulders and ped/bike lanes, but that's just not the case.
After spending some time in the NYC metro, I saw the Hudson River bridge for I-287/I-87 and is named the Gov Mario Cuomo bridge (toll).  It is several miles long and has a walk/run/bike section with a parking area on each side.  I would be interested the cost and how any negotiations and explanations went for this additional feature of the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on October 10, 2021, 07:47:31 PM
The most logical non-vehicular crossing between Evansville and Henderson would be using the existing US 41 bridge that's going to be eliminated from the route. Pedestrian/bike traffic is more likely to use a route between the two cities' downtowns than the interstate route east of that area.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CardInLex on October 10, 2021, 08:22:25 PM
A bike/ped path on the 69 crossing makes sense. Just like the East End bridge in Louisville the path will become a destination. I drive roughly 20 minutes to the East End bridge just to use the path frequently (since dogs aren’t allowed on the Big Four downtown). It’s always busy.

Also, Evansville has and is starting to get great bike infrastructure, to say the city doesn’t is a disservice. My most recent jaunt to Evansville a few months ago included a look at this infrastructure (I don’t even ride a bike). The new North Main St trail connecting Garvin Lake with downtown was really nice. The trail along Walnut St was nice too. Not to mention the path along the river in Evansville and the super ped friendly Main Street.

On the Henderson side, the riverfront path is a great place to walk and bike too!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: vdeane on October 10, 2021, 11:03:37 PM
It's also worth noting that bridges are around for a long time and are not easily retrofitted when needs change.  You can get away with saying "they want a path but there's nothing connecting to it in the project area, so we'll just wait and if they build their part then we'll do it" for a road, but not for a bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on October 10, 2021, 11:11:58 PM
It's also worth noting that bridges are around for a long time and are not easily retrofitted when needs change.  You can get away with saying "they want a path but there's nothing connecting to it in the project area, so we'll just wait and if they build their part then we'll do it" for a road, but not for a bridge.

Yes, a bicycle crossing here could be a magnet for trails and tourists for the next hundred years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on October 11, 2021, 08:23:24 AM
Ah my comments were with the original plan in mind. I forgot they aren't keeping that old 41 bridge for peds. I really am against putting it on 69, seems like an even worse idea. I am for a connection in most cases, but this one I just don't see it. Question for the locals or whoever is familiar with the area, are Henderson and Evansville remotely connected (in the way that say Louisville and New Albany area are or Cincy/Covington)?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on October 11, 2021, 09:18:30 AM
Looking at the existing geometry, Bridgehunter says the deck width is 29.8 feet. I suppose you could put a railing in and have a bi-directional trail to one side of the older bridge, but then you are squeezing the remaining roadway traffic into 10 foot or less lanes, with the trail itself a sub-optimal 8 feet or so. You could have striped 4 foot bike lanes on each side, no barriers, and the roadway could be a smidge wider but still sub-optimal.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on October 11, 2021, 10:11:12 AM
However it gets done (I-69 or US-41) it is definitely possible.

Images from FDOT Fuller Warren I-95 SUP Project

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/SUP%20GAI_new1.JPG)

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/SUP%20GAI_new2.JPG)

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/IMG_1184.jpg)

Or do it the old way like with the Hanaran Bridge in Memphis

http://www.bigrivercrossing.com/ (http://www.bigrivercrossing.com/)

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/project-images-2018/_AUTOx1084_fit_center-center_none/1449490228-20150923_142527.jpg)

Using galvanized steel and LED lighting, you could make the legacy US-41 bridge a destination pedway.



Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on October 11, 2021, 10:13:09 AM
However it gets done (I-69 or US-41) it is definitely possible.

Images from FDOT Fuller Warren I-95 SUP Project

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/SUP%20GAI_new1.JPG)

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/SUP%20GAI_new2.JPG)

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/IMG_1184.jpg)

Or do it the old way like with the Hanaran Bridge in Memphis

http://www.bigrivercrossing.com/ (http://www.bigrivercrossing.com/)

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/project-images-2018/_AUTOx1084_fit_center-center_none/1449490228-20150923_142527.jpg)

Using galvanized steel and LED lighting, you could make the legacy US-41 bridge a destination pedway.
We know it's possible, Kentucky is just being cheap.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on October 11, 2021, 11:04:48 AM
1. The new I-69 bridge would be an easier fix to add a bike path than the old bridge, but not sure if it's the best location. I think pedestrians and bicyclists would like to stay closer to the core of Henderson than out by the toll bridge, if given the choice. But bike paths on interstates, while rare, are sometimes added. See also I-494 over the Minnesota River in Bloomington/Mendota Heights, MN.
2. Not all truss bridges are good candidates for hanging a new path off to the side. We did studies of a shorter crossing over the IL River, and the existing truss wouldn't really work structurally, and you'd basically need to build a parallel bike bridge with new piers, etc. At that point, and because of other maintenance issues, a new bridge with an integrated path was in order. Adding a ped/bike crossing to US 41 similar to the Harahan crossing might be the best option, but the existing conditions need to be right to make it work.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: evvroads on October 11, 2021, 01:36:53 PM
Question for the locals or whoever is familiar with the area, are Henderson and Evansville remotely connected (in the way that say Louisville and New Albany area are or Cincy/Covington)?

Somewhat, but not really. Evansville is the regional hub for a lot of shopping, restaurants, hospitals, etc, so you get people from the smaller towns all over the area coming to Evansville for those things, though Henderson has plenty of the chain stores, restaurants, etc too. You also have people that live in Henderson and work in Evansville (most common) or vice versa, but that's true for many of the small towns close to Evansville. As an Evansville resident (that works in Evansville also), if Henderson fell off the face of the Earth I can't say I'd be affected one bit. And apart from Evansville having higher level of care with the hospitals and a few more restaurant/shopping options, I think a lot of Henderson residents could say the same.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on October 11, 2021, 03:32:25 PM
However it gets done (I-69 or US-41) it is definitely possible.

Images from FDOT Fuller Warren I-95 SUP Project

Using galvanized steel and LED lighting, you could make the legacy US-41 bridge a destination pedway.

When FDOT District 1 announced the I-95 bridge widening, there was no public hearing, nothing.

There was a loud outcry for a bike/pedway and District 1 came up with lots of excuses.

- Too expensive
- Illegal and against FHA design standards

Then the TPO and locals got involved and found out the District 1 office was just flat out lying.

They just didn't want to deal with it and the public.

Adding the pedway was still within their contingency budget, it didn't in fact violate "anything" as other FDOT Districts had done in Tampa and Miami.

When the concept of converting the Hanrahan roadway to a pedway, at first no one wanted to pay for it. The railroad didn't want it from the start.

But after several public hearings in both Tennessee & Arkansas there was support to have it funded, if anything to get ped traffic off the Memphis & Arkansas Bridge.

Once public support was found, a combo state/federal grant was put together and voila! A great reuse project for a public ROW.

If there is a level of public support on both sides of the river, it will happen.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on October 25, 2021, 09:09:10 PM
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/KYTC/bulletins/2f92797

Construction to Begin Early Next Year on I-69 ORX Section 1
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Ryctor2018 on October 26, 2021, 02:11:18 PM
Excellent news! This will push the bridge timeline further, instead of having the ORX bridge "stall" because of inertia/lack of willpower.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on December 22, 2021, 09:55:12 AM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/kytc-section-1-contract-awarded/

Quote
It’s the final key step to move one of Gov. Andy Beshear’s top-priority transportation projects to construction — Section 1 of the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) between Henderson and Evansville, Indiana. A contract has been awarded to the Ragle, Inc./Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. design-build team. Construction is expected to begin in Henderson early next year.

“The past several days have been extremely difficult since tornadoes created so much loss for Kentuckians,”  said Gov. Beshear. “It’s good to share some positive and important news. Many people in Western Kentucky have championed an interstate river crossing for decades. Having a team in place to construct the Kentucky approach for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing is a major step forward. I look forward to construction in the spring and seeing the first pieces of this transformational project that will benefit so many take shape.”

I-69 ORX Section 1 focuses on improvements in Henderson and extends from KY 425 to US 60. Construction is expected to begin in early 2022 and continue through 2025. It will extend I-69 by more than six miles and includes interchanges with KY 351, US 41 near Kimsey Lane and at US 60.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) is overseeing work on Section 1. KYTC has been reviewing and scoring proposals. Technical proposals were submitted in November and price proposals were opened last week. Ragle/Stantec was awarded the nearly $158 million construction contract after being identified as the apparent Best Value design-build team.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on December 22, 2021, 10:15:40 AM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/kytc-section-1-contract-awarded/

Quote
It’s the final key step to move one of Gov. Andy Beshear’s top-priority transportation projects to construction — Section 1 of the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (I-69 ORX) between Henderson and Evansville, Indiana. A contract has been awarded to the Ragle, Inc./Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. design-build team. Construction is expected to begin in Henderson early next year.

“The past several days have been extremely difficult since tornadoes created so much loss for Kentuckians,”  said Gov. Beshear. “It’s good to share some positive and important news. Many people in Western Kentucky have championed an interstate river crossing for decades. Having a team in place to construct the Kentucky approach for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing is a major step forward. I look forward to construction in the spring and seeing the first pieces of this transformational project that will benefit so many take shape.”

I-69 ORX Section 1 focuses on improvements in Henderson and extends from KY 425 to US 60. Construction is expected to begin in early 2022 and continue through 2025. It will extend I-69 by more than six miles and includes interchanges with KY 351, US 41 near Kimsey Lane and at US 60.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) is overseeing work on Section 1. KYTC has been reviewing and scoring proposals. Technical proposals were submitted in November and price proposals were opened last week. Ragle/Stantec was awarded the nearly $158 million construction contract after being identified as the apparent Best Value design-build team.

Excellent news, especially coming so close after the tornado damage.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on December 22, 2021, 12:53:37 PM
So it looks like they went with design/build instead of the traditional method.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 22, 2021, 01:28:03 PM
is the 69/SR 339 Deathbow going away?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on December 22, 2021, 02:42:43 PM
is the 69/SR 339 Deathbow going away?

There's no SR 339. Do you mean 39?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 22, 2021, 03:12:31 PM
is the 69/SR 339 Deathbow going away?

There's no SR 339. Do you mean 39?

In Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2021, 03:22:52 PM
How does this relate to the bridge project?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 22, 2021, 04:44:39 PM
Meanwhile the bridge portion will start construction in 2027 with pre-construction such as design, right of way, and utility coordination starting in 2025.

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/orx-section-2/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on December 22, 2021, 05:03:23 PM
How does this relate to the bridge project?

SR-339 goes from Paducah to south of Mayfield. Nowhere close to this project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on December 22, 2021, 05:47:12 PM
Since the previous 3 posters are useless I found my answer. The I-69 SR 339 interchange will become a diamond eventually. 2025
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on December 22, 2021, 06:44:59 PM
Since the previous 3 posters are useless I found my answer. The I-69 SR 339 interchange will become a diamond eventually. 2025

That's the Wingo exit between Mayfield and the Tennessee state line. Nowhere near Henderson or Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2021, 08:01:11 PM
Since the previous 3 posters are useless I found my answer. The I-69 SR 339 interchange will become a diamond eventually. 2025
There’s no connection to this project - it wasn’t clear what you were talking about initially.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 09, 2022, 01:50:52 PM
The contract have been given for section 1 (from KY 425 to US 60) a few weeks ago.

https://www.wevv.com/content/news/Contract-Awarded-For-First-Section-Of-Interstate-69-Crossing-Section-1-575956671.html
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on January 09, 2022, 07:48:21 PM
any maps of the new interchanges?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on January 09, 2022, 11:00:42 PM
any maps of the new interchanges?

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Interchange-Refinement-Maps-January-2021.pdf (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Interchange-Refinement-Maps-January-2021.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on June 12, 2022, 01:59:58 PM
Big Rig Steve just drove through the construction area for the bridge approach on the Kentucky side.  Orange barrels were up, and the left lane was closed on a short section of I-69, but nothing else visible that I could see.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Ryctor2018 on June 12, 2022, 07:38:35 PM
Big Rig Steve just drove through the construction area for the bridge approach on the Kentucky side.  Orange barrels were up, and the left lane was closed on a short section of I-69, but nothing else visible that I could see.

This area that Steve drove thru on 6/12/2022 is a few miles south of the ORX project listed on its website. The project construction area is on US-41 from the Audubon Pkwy north to just south of US-60. The construction zone may be for an unrelated project in northern KY.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 13, 2022, 07:59:36 AM
Big Rig Steve just drove through the construction area for the bridge approach on the Kentucky side.  Orange barrels were up, and the left lane was closed on a short section of I-69, but nothing else visible that I could see.

This area that Steve drove thru on 6/12/2022 is a few miles south of the ORX project listed on its website. The project construction area is on US-41 from the Audubon Pkwy north to just south of US-60. The construction zone may be for an unrelated project in northern KY.
My understanding is the Phase I contract is a Design-Build contract, meaning the contractor has to submit a final design package that needs to be approved before construction begins. I think ROW acquisition and utility relocations also have to be completed before the contractor can start construction as well. I haven't seen any recent updates as to where things currently stand with the project.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on June 13, 2022, 08:10:33 PM
What is your prediction for the bridge design? My bet is on cable-stayed, because we can't get enough of those.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on June 14, 2022, 12:04:32 AM
What is your prediction for the bridge design? My bet is on cable-stayed, because we can't get enough of those.
A challenge in the bridge design is it's near the New Madrid Seismic Zone, so any bridge will need to withstand a major earthquake. I think a cable-stayed, a tied-arch, through arch, or self-anchored suspension design might be on the table. I think the span across the Ohio River would be too great for a girder-and-floorbeam type bridge or a post-tensioned box girder bridge. I doubt a truss bridge will be considered due to the considerable amount of steel (and cost) needed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 14, 2022, 09:45:51 AM
What is your prediction for the bridge design? My bet is on cable-stayed, because we can't get enough of those.
A challenge in the bridge design is it's near the New Madrid Seismic Zone, so any bridge will need to withstand a major earthquake. I think a cable-stayed, a tied-arch, through arch, or self-anchored suspension design might be on the table. I think the span across the Ohio River would be too great for a girder-and-floorbeam type bridge or a post-tensioned box girder bridge. I doubt a truss bridge will be considered due to the considerable amount of steel (and cost) needed.

The link below will take you to the seismic evaluation by KYDOT of the northbound US41 bridge at Henderson done in 1999. This should give you an idea of the expectations for the new span design.

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/382/ (https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/382/)

This link discusses the seismic study done for the new Ohio River span at Louisville

https://transportation.mst.edu/media/research/transportation/documents/R202_CR.pdf (https://transportation.mst.edu/media/research/transportation/documents/R202_CR.pdf)

I didn't read these in detail, just skimmed them.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 14, 2022, 11:26:24 AM
A challenge in the bridge design is it's near the New Madrid Seismic Zone, so any bridge will need to withstand a major earthquake. I think a cable-stayed, a tied-arch, through arch, or self-anchored suspension design might be on the table. I think the span across the Ohio River would be too great for a girder-and-floorbeam type bridge or a post-tensioned box girder bridge. I doubt a truss bridge will be considered due to the considerable amount of steel (and cost) needed.

Truss is considered a fracture-critical design and they are pretty much out of favor. Steel girder and concrete deck can be done up to 700 foot span but cost increases exponentially after 350 feet or so, but it is the most redundant design where it can be applied. I have been involved in several girder bridges in the 400 to 550 foot range.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:41:36 AM
I'm told by someone in the know that Evansville is pushing for a pedestrian/bike path on the new bridge. "Why" is the question I asked. Pedestrians aren't going to use a bridge that far east when one of the US 41 bridges could be used for that purpose.

Also, I'm told that the preliminary design for the bridge has only four-foot inside shoulders instead of full-width shoulders. There's great fear that an incident on the bridge will snarl traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on June 14, 2022, 11:49:31 AM
Considering that the older of the two bridges will be kept, pedestrians and cyclists won't be using that. It also has a steep grade, so cyclists and steep grades combined with traffic isn't going to be ideal.

They should be incorporating pedestrian and cycling paths on all new major crossings where feasible. You have a state park on one end and a major city on the other. There is no easy way for cyclists (etc.) to cross for many miles - especially if the design is calling for 4' shoulders. We don't need a repeat of the Nice Bridge debacle.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 14, 2022, 11:55:56 AM
I'm told by someone in the know that Evansville is pushing for a pedestrian/bike path on the new bridge. "Why" is the question I asked. Pedestrians aren't going to use a bridge that far east when one of the US 41 bridges could be used for that purpose.

Also, I'm told that the preliminary design for the bridge has only four-foot inside shoulders instead of full-width shoulders. There's great fear that an incident on the bridge will snarl traffic.

As long as there is a full shoulder on the outside (where most vehicles would pull off anyway in case of a flat or breakdown) I don't see a great need to also widen the inside shoulder. The roadway can go to a full inside shoulder right off each end of the bridge, minimizing exposure to traffic snarls in the corridor overall.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 14, 2022, 01:26:38 PM
I'm told by someone in the know that Evansville is pushing for a pedestrian/bike path on the new bridge. "Why" is the question I asked. Pedestrians aren't going to use a bridge that far east when one of the US 41 bridges could be used for that purpose.

Also, I'm told that the preliminary design for the bridge has only four-foot inside shoulders instead of full-width shoulders. There's great fear that an incident on the bridge will snarl traffic.

It's always possible.

(https://nflroads.com/ProjectFiles/5176/SUP%20GAI_new2.JPG)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2022, 03:50:36 PM
Does the bridge need to have four lanes in each direction, like the picture implies? I would understand two or three lanes in each direction, but four really seems like overkill.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 14, 2022, 04:51:22 PM
Does the bridge need to have four lanes in each direction, like the picture implies? I would understand two or three lanes in each direction, but four really seems like overkill.

I think Ed Waleni's pic was an example showing a pedestrian crossing from another project, not the I-69 crossing itself.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 15, 2022, 11:45:48 AM
Does the bridge need to have four lanes in each direction, like the picture implies? I would understand two or three lanes in each direction, but four really seems like overkill.

I think Ed Waleni's pic was an example showing a pedestrian crossing from another project, not the I-69 crossing itself.

Correct. The example shown is from the I-95 bridge over the St John's River in Florida.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2022, 11:59:44 AM
That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 15, 2022, 03:10:35 PM
I tried to pull the seismology report for the new US-51 bridge at Cairo that is currently in planning.

www.us51bridge.com (http://www.us51bridge.com)

Seeing that they have a near proximity to Evansville and are about a year or two ahead of this project, I wanted to see what the environmental reports pull on New Madrid data.

Well, they had every report posted EXCEPT the seismology report....

https://us51bridge.com/environmental-documentation (https://us51bridge.com/environmental-documentation)

So I guess I will have to wait and see when the DEIS for the preferred alternative comes out and see what they have. (2H-2022)

It will be a 980 foot span they calculate and they won't present the proposed designs until all the signoffs on the DEIS are complete. (4Q-2022)

The requirements say they are planning for a 350 year seismic event, so I will assume the I-69 bridge will be following something similar.

FWIW: A 50 year seismic event in the New Madrid would be a 6.0 (25 to 40% chance). Cairo is in Zone 8 of the Mercalli Index. (New Madrid is in Zone 9, which is 7.0+)

Evansville is in Zone 7. According to Mercalli that translates to a 5.5 in the 50 year event probability.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 16, 2022, 09:49:52 AM
I don't think the details have been publicly announced yet, but a groundbreaking ceremony is planned for I-69 one day next week.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 16, 2022, 10:38:20 AM
Researchers have located the remains of a 7.0+ earthquake that struck between Evansville and Mt Vernon on the Wabash Valley Fault. Testing of some of the byproducts show it occurred about 6000 years ago.

Not sure what the lifecycles are for that fault family as recently its mostly been in the 4 range.

Either way, this bridge has to have some seismic tolerance for both fault families, New Madrid and Wabash Valley.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on June 16, 2022, 11:14:21 AM
I also fully agree that pedestrian and bicycle facilities SHOULD be included in all Major crossings (lately I've often been using the Stillwater Bridge (MN32-WI 64) as a model for that, too, as I really like the way that the two states handled that bridge).

That said, I see no need for any such facilities on I-69-Ohio River, as nearby and more useful alternatives (namely one of the two existing US 41 spans) already exist.

I also agree, and a friend who has occasionally dabbled in volunteer firefighting told me a while back, that an old adage among firefighters is 'NEVER trust a truss'.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on June 16, 2022, 12:14:33 PM
The alternative isn't viable for pedestrians or cyclists. It is the narrower and steeper of the two crossings - and it will remain as two lanes with no provisions for either pedestrians or cyclists. Think of the former Milton-Madison Bridge for US 421 which was a nightmare for both. Cyclists, which there were many, had to battle steep grades that backed up traffic on the crossing on a route with no shoulders.

As for shoulders - that could be fine but on an interstate? I've biked on plenty of freeways and expressways but none were designated interstates. It can be done out west in sections but what about a bridge?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 16, 2022, 04:05:08 PM
The alternative isn't viable for pedestrians or cyclists. It is the narrower and steeper of the two crossings - and it will remain as two lanes with no provisions for either pedestrians or cyclists. Think of the former Milton-Madison Bridge for US 421 which was a nightmare for both. Cyclists, which there were many, had to battle steep grades that backed up traffic on the crossing on a route with no shoulders.

As for shoulders - that could be fine but on an interstate? I've biked on plenty of freeways and expressways but none were designated interstates. It can be done out west in sections but what about a bridge?

The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge. Like I-494 in MN. On the interstate bridges themselves, I am not aware of any that do not have a barrier between the shoulder and the path where there is a defined bike/ped path.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8830256,-93.0168155,3a,75y,259.38h,87.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sviCU7RR-Fi1a_OXgs9YTrw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8825483,-93.0213792,3a,75y,276.9h,85.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjmU_9ejea9bf8zZKD9t-pg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8849768,-93.0090619,3a,44.3y,265.46h,88.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se0qrEz79iu6VCmxraTouFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 16, 2022, 10:52:56 PM
The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge.

So I-72 at Hannibal is western interstate?  :spin:

https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA (https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA)

https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9 (https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9)

(In case anyone is wondering, IDOT's ADT map shows 17200 for 2021.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 17, 2022, 10:32:28 AM
The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge.

So I-72 at Hannibal is western interstate?  :spin:

https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA (https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA)

https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9 (https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9)

(In case anyone is wondering, IDOT's ADT map shows 17200 for 2021.

I-72 used to end at the I-172 ramp.

When the Mark Twain Bridge was replaced in 2000 they extended I-72 3 miles into Missouri.

Not clear to me if the bicycle signs came after the bridge was done, or they were thrown up sometime after.

The bridge was originally just US-36 and they may have gotten away with using the shoulders based on that.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on June 17, 2022, 11:31:11 AM
The usual solution for paths on an interstate in all but the western low ADT interstates (where occasionally bikes or peds are allowed) is to separate the path from the roadway by either putting up a barrier or diverting the path off the roadway as soon as it gets off the bridge.

So I-72 at Hannibal is western interstate?  :spin:

https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA (https://goo.gl/maps/ZEYG1zQCr7ojrHadA)

https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9 (https://goo.gl/maps/JSFKjbcU6jveaTkn9)

(In case anyone is wondering, IDOT's ADT map shows 17200 for 2021.

I was planning PM for the replacement of Florence Bridge in IL on old US 36. One of the options was to close the bridge and re-route the traffic on I-72 where the traffic counts are around 8800/day. We also looked into the FHWA IL Division approving allowing bikes on the shoulder across the I-72 Illinois River bridge and to the next exits, since the closing of the Florence Bridge would preclude bike/pedestrian crossing for several miles each way from the closed crossing without an alternative. In no uncertain terms, the idea was shut down right away. It may be a "west of the Mississippi" thing with FHWA, even though my project was only 40-some miles east of Hannibal.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on June 17, 2022, 08:11:37 PM
The issue, to me, with the new I-69 bridge is that it's out in the boonies, far away from the corridor most pedestrians and bicyclists would use, between the Henderson and Evansville downtowns.

If they're really insistent on moving vehicular traffic to one of the existing bridges, which I still think is a dumb idea, then they should leave the other bridge intact for a multi-use trail instead of demolishing it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 18, 2022, 10:58:15 PM
I-72 used to end at the I-172 ramp.

When the Mark Twain Bridge was replaced in 2000 they extended I-72 3 miles into Missouri.

Not clear to me if the bicycle signs came after the bridge was done, or they were thrown up sometime after.

The bridge was originally just US-36 and they may have gotten away with using the shoulders based on that.

IRRC the current Mississippi crossing at Hannibal always had I-72 and US 36 cosigned.  I also want to say bikes were allowed on the bridge since it officially opened to traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on June 18, 2022, 11:18:48 PM
I-72 used to end at the I-172 ramp.

When the Mark Twain Bridge was replaced in 2000 they extended I-72 3 miles into Missouri.

Not clear to me if the bicycle signs came after the bridge was done, or they were thrown up sometime after.

The bridge was originally just US-36 and they may have gotten away with using the shoulders based on that.

IRRC the current Mississippi crossing at Hannibal always had I-72 and US 36 cosigned.  I also want to say bikes were allowed on the bridge since it officially opened to traffic.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this write up about I-72 and 3rd Street.

Until the mid-1990s, I-72 ran from Springfield at I-55 to Champaign at I-57. On June 9, 1991, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) approved the establishment of I-172 from the western terminus of I-72 at Springfield to Fall Creek, four miles (6.4 km) east of Hannibal, Missouri, though it was contingent on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval. The FHWA preferred to designate the route I-72.[2][3]

After discussions regarding extending an Interstate Highway through the state of Missouri, on April 22, 1995, AASHTO approved another renumbering. I-172 was renumbered in its entirety as I-72. The US 36 extension west of Fall Creek was also given the I-72 designation. The Illinois Route 336 (IL 336) expressway was renumbered to I-172 from Fall Creek to Fowler.[3][4]

Prior to September 2000, Mark Twain Avenue (old US 36) was composed of the current Mark Twain Avenue (now Route 79) and the portion of I-72 and US 36 west of exit 157 to the Hannibal city limits. Route 79 terminated at the foot of the old Mark Twain Memorial Bridge at the corner of Third Street and Mark Twain Avenue. Signs along the four lane expressway portion of Mark Twain Avenue marked the route as "Future I-72", while signs along what is now Route 79 had I-72 trailblazers to direct drivers to the temporary terminus at Fall Creek, Illinois. When the new Mark Twain Memorial Bridge was completed in September 2000, I-72 was routed over the new bridge, along with US 36. Route 79 was extended along Mark Twain Avenue to terminate at exit 157.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on June 19, 2022, 11:14:47 PM
^ I think the bolded paragraph could be clearer - there was a brief expressway portion of US 36 from south of McKay Lake (about where the pavement changes (https://goo.gl/maps/GL14c8YBM8m7Q8BQA)) to near the west end of the western ramps at the MO 79 interchange that was upgraded for I-72.

I don't think the old bridge was wide enough to to sign for bicycles - see https://youtu.be/L3c-nB3_KGk (https://youtu.be/L3c-nB3_KGk).

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 22, 2022, 11:20:48 AM
The thing about bike paths is if you build it, they will come.  For what amounts to chump change for for a giant project like an Ohio River crossing, one creates an attraction in of itself for bikes.  You come to bike the bridge, even if you're not going to necessarily bike from Evansville to Henderson.  And you do it because it's cool.

In this case, it'll be far cheaper to include a little bike path on this giant new bridge rather than screw around with trying to maintain a massive, aging bridge just for bikes.  It provides a central node to expand a larger network of bike trails on either side of the river that feed the bridge.  It makes too much sense to do it, in my opinion.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 22, 2022, 02:33:31 PM
They need to build a bike path on this bridge just for people to have the option. They also need to have a second bike path goes directly into downtown Evansville. But this area is big enough where it could warrant to crossings and facilitate alternative transportation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on June 23, 2022, 08:35:46 PM
it would function like most rural paths. recreation. nothing wrong with that
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on June 23, 2022, 09:34:43 PM
Official groundbreaking took place yesterday.

https://www.wishtv.com/news/were-off-ky-in-celebrate-launch-of-i-69-bridge-project/

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/orx-groundbreaking/

https://www.wevv.com/news/kentucky/officials-break-ground-on-i-69-ohio-river-crossing-in-henderson/article_24906072-f242-11ec-82bd-2f5e8662ee4d.html
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jbrocato on August 14, 2022, 10:41:42 PM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge. 
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 15, 2022, 08:26:33 AM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.

gotta pay for it somehow.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 15, 2022, 09:02:13 AM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.
The only way they could fully fund the I-69 bridge is to build it as a toll bridge. There just isn't enough money to build it as a free bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on August 15, 2022, 10:19:43 AM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.
The only way they could fully fund the I-69 bridge is to build it as a toll bridge. There just isn't enough money to build it as a free bridge.

If only the sitting KY 1st District and IN 8th District congressmen could've worked across the aisle to get it in the infrastructure plan, like the Brent Spence bridge ...
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 15, 2022, 10:30:17 AM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.
The only way they could fully fund the I-69 bridge is to build it as a toll bridge. There just isn't enough money to build it as a free bridge.

If only the sitting KY 1st District and IN 8th District congressmen could've worked across the aisle to get it in the infrastructure plan, like the Brent Spence bridge ...

that bridge is far more important than the 69 bridge. insane amount of truck traffic and it's on the top 10 worst bottlenecks in the us for truck traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on August 15, 2022, 12:07:48 PM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.
The only way they could fully fund the I-69 bridge is to build it as a toll bridge. There just isn't enough money to build it as a free bridge.

If only the sitting KY 1st District and IN 8th District congressmen could've worked across the aisle to get it in the infrastructure plan, like the Brent Spence bridge ...

that bridge is far more important than the 69 bridge. insane amount of truck traffic and it's on the top 10 worst bottlenecks in the us for truck traffic.

I totally agree that the Spence is far more important, but I made the statement to point out that the SW IN/W KY region used to have clout enough (by way of having Congressmen like Bill Natcher and Lee Hamilton, and Senators like Wendell Ford) to get toll-free bridges built in areas not quite of such importance.

The Natcher Bridge was probably the last one outside of Louisville or NKY that we'll see.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 15, 2022, 01:38:28 PM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.
The only way they could fully fund the I-69 bridge is to build it as a toll bridge. There just isn't enough money to build it as a free bridge.

If only the sitting KY 1st District and IN 8th District congressmen could've worked across the aisle to get it in the infrastructure plan, like the Brent Spence bridge ...

that bridge is far more important than the 69 bridge. insane amount of truck traffic and it's on the top 10 worst bottlenecks in the us for truck traffic.

I totally agree that the Spence is far more important, but I made the statement to point out that the SW IN/W KY region used to have clout enough (by way of having Congressmen like Bill Natcher and Lee Hamilton, and Senators like Wendell Ford) to get toll-free bridges built in areas not quite of such importance.

The Natcher Bridge was probably the last one outside of Louisville or NKY that we'll see.

is there a need of a new crossing elsewhere though? i can't think of any myself.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on August 15, 2022, 05:30:22 PM
Not in the immediate future, but in the next 20-30 years, who knows? Anything could happen.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 16, 2022, 06:17:35 PM
Is there any place along the Ohio River that you believe might need a new bridge, silverback1065? The only place I'd "theoretically" like to see a new bridge is perhaps one extending from the end of KY 841/KY 1934 and connecting it with IN 111.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 16, 2022, 08:50:15 PM
Is there any place along the Ohio River that you believe might need a new bridge, silverback1065? The only place I'd "theoretically" like to see a new bridge is perhaps one extending from the end of KY 841/KY 1934 and connecting it with IN 111.

to be honest, no, seems like every logical crossing is covered (if we are only talking about indiana kentucky part) not sure having a bridge at IN 111 or IN 166 would really justify the cost.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on August 16, 2022, 10:51:09 PM
Is there any place along the Ohio River that you believe might need a new bridge, silverback1065? The only place I'd "theoretically" like to see a new bridge is perhaps one extending from the end of KY 841/KY 1934 and connecting it with IN 111.

to be honest, no, seems like every logical crossing is covered (if we are only talking about indiana kentucky part) not sure having a bridge at IN 111 or IN 166 would really justify the cost.

Technically, the Ohio River *will* be getting a new bridge at Cairo.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 17, 2022, 08:57:32 AM
Given the population of the Evansville area and the age and narrowness of the US 41 bridge, that I-69 bridge really should be a free bridge.
The only way they could fully fund the I-69 bridge is to build it as a toll bridge. There just isn't enough money to build it as a free bridge.

If only the sitting KY 1st District and IN 8th District congressmen could've worked across the aisle to get it in the infrastructure plan, like the Brent Spence bridge ...
In times past, Congress could have earmarked funds for a project like the I-69 ORX...and perhaps the entire I-69 corridor while they're at it.  Since earmarks were heavily abused, Congress decided to ban them about 10-25 years ago to appease fiscal hawks.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2022, 09:06:26 AM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/section-1-kentucky/

I see the upgrades to US 41 are in place and work is begun.  They call it Phase One. Phase Two starts in five years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2022, 12:43:28 PM
This means exits 10 through 14 will have to be renumbered again when the Interstate 69 designation is extended northward toward the future Ohio River Bridge. It makes me think the exits should have remained numbered via their old Pennyrile Parkway numbers along this segment.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on August 17, 2022, 05:22:08 PM
This means exits 10 through 14 will have to be renumbered again when the Interstate 69 designation is extended northward toward the future Ohio River Bridge. It makes me think the exits should have remained numbered via their old Pennyrile Parkway numbers along this segment.

Nobody uses the exit numbers, so it doesn't really matter what they are. If traffic is backed up from the NB bridge all the way to the KY 351 exit, local media will make reference to either Zion Road (the street name) or KY 351.

And the 425 bypass will always be the 425 bypass, even with part of that now being 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2022, 10:49:54 PM
I know this is fictional, but being it’s part of an existing project I will suggest this.  US 60 once the first section is completed, should be aligned on I-69 when Section one completed.  The whole completed freeway should become also US 60.  Just designate KY 425 as US 60 and co sign it with I-69 between the KY 425 trumpet to the new I-69 and US 60 interchange.  Just have the current US 60 through the city become US 60 Business.

That would help with the signing of the Section One part, as it can’t be signed as I-69 until the bridge gets done in 2027.  Just sign that as US 60 solo until they get Section 2 done.  I’m sure AASHTO would approve this.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2022, 10:57:29 PM
Also to note is this rendering of the planned KY 351 Dumbbell Interchange.  Whoever rendered it, has some of the semis use the roundabouts very reckless.  One almost lost complete control circumventing it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on August 18, 2022, 06:19:45 AM
In that roundabout rendering, it looks like the trucks that were having trouble making the curve should had been using the truck apron, since that is what the apron is for.  On an ironic personal note, the adjacent large building to the first roundabout is Henderson County High School.  My mother had taught English at that school for 17 years before her retirement in the 1980's.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 18, 2022, 07:57:23 AM
For reference, posting a section 1 map, so people don't have to keep scrolling through pages to find one.

 (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Section-1.png)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 18, 2022, 08:05:16 AM
I know this is fictional, but being it’s part of an existing project I will suggest this.  US 60 once the first section is completed, should be aligned on I-69 when Section one completed.  The whole completed freeway should become also US 60.  Just designate KY 425 as US 60 and co sign it with I-69 between the KY 425 trumpet to the new I-69 and US 60 interchange.  Just have the current US 60 through the city become US 60 Business.

That would help with the signing of the Section One part, as it can’t be signed as I-69 until the bridge gets done in 2027.  Just sign that as US 60 solo until they get Section 2 done.  I’m sure AASHTO would approve this.

there's nothing saying they can't sign it as 69 until the bridge is done. it would terminate at an arterial, so it's good to sign as 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 18, 2022, 08:42:34 AM
I know this is fictional, but being it’s part of an existing project I will suggest this.  US 60 once the first section is completed, should be aligned on I-69 when Section one completed.  The whole completed freeway should become also US 60.  Just designate KY 425 as US 60 and co sign it with I-69 between the KY 425 trumpet to the new I-69 and US 60 interchange.  Just have the current US 60 through the city become US 60 Business.

That would help with the signing of the Section One part, as it can’t be signed as I-69 until the bridge gets done in 2027.  Just sign that as US 60 solo until they get Section 2 done.  I’m sure AASHTO would approve this.

there's nothing saying they can't sign it as 69 until the bridge is done. it would terminate at an arterial, so it's good to sign as 69.
Rules on interstate highway signing require that one end be connected to another interstate route, but the other end may terminate at a non-interstate route, as long as that route is on the National Highway System, which US-60 is. So there would be no problem signing I-69 up to US-60 and having it end there until the bridge is built.  On the Indiana side however, they will have the northern approach built before the bridge is completed. But since there will be no interchanges between its connection to the existing I-69 and the bridge, the northern approach will not be opened to traffic until the bridge is completed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on August 18, 2022, 09:31:09 AM
I know this is fictional, but being it’s part of an existing project I will suggest this.  US 60 once the first section is completed, should be aligned on I-69 when Section one completed.  The whole completed freeway should become also US 60.  Just designate KY 425 as US 60 and co sign it with I-69 between the KY 425 trumpet to the new I-69 and US 60 interchange.  Just have the current US 60 through the city become US 60 Business.

That would help with the signing of the Section One part, as it can’t be signed as I-69 until the bridge gets done in 2027.  Just sign that as US 60 solo until they get Section 2 done.  I’m sure AASHTO would approve this.

there's nothing saying they can't sign it as 69 until the bridge is done. it would terminate at an arterial, so it's good to sign as 69.


Not referring to the fact it can’t be signed, but that in practice many states choose not to sign an incomplete interstate where it temporarily ends at another route that don’t serve the through route connecting to a later segment of the route.

For example, NJ waited until the segment of I-78 was completed between Exits 41-48 before WB shields were place on all ramps and parts of the freeway east of Exit 48. This was due to the fact I-78 was well known west of Watchung, NJ to the Lehigh Valley Region, that they didn’t want confusion of people thinking the trek between the exits that were incomplete could be circumvented once you reached the completed segment end. I-78 WB defaulted into NJ 24 West which has no connections to other roads reaching the freeway west of Exit 41.

Here you sign it to US 60, the motorists will have to dogleg back to US 41 via US 60 West, which the interchange is  just north of where the I-69 and US 41 split will occur.   So there it’s best to just wait to officially sign ( remember the route number in legislation still confirms Section one as I-69) the route until the other two sections are complete. 

Another issue is WB on US 60 doesn’t acknowledge I-69 north in Indiana as the guide at US 41 states US 41 south is TO I-69. No mention that I-69 also goes north from US 41 at Evansville at that junction at all.  So one will be looped back to where they came from if they use I-69 to the end at US 60.

It’s nothing to do with whether an interstate can end at another non interstate road, but the fact where the end is in relationship to another principal through route going the same way. The interchange where I-69 and US 41 will part ways is very near to the US 41 and US 60 cloverleaf. Much closer  than the two exchanges will be on US 60 between both US 41 and I-69 when completed Section One is finished.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: royo6022 on August 18, 2022, 10:44:50 AM
Also to note is this rendering of the planned KY 351 Dumbbell Interchange.  Whoever rendered it, has some of the semis use the roundabouts very reckless.  One almost lost complete control circumventing it.

Watch the second bus that pulls into the lot on the left... looks like a bumpy ride for the kids!!
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 18, 2022, 12:07:27 PM
Also to note is this rendering of the planned KY 351 Dumbbell Interchange.  Whoever rendered it, has some of the semis use the roundabouts very reckless.  One almost lost complete control circumventing it.

Watch the second bus that pulls into the lot on the left... looks like a bumpy ride for the kids!!

Terror at 5 1/2 feet...

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on August 19, 2022, 11:41:08 AM
Maybe this is the "everyone is texting while driving" visualization.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: royo6022 on August 19, 2022, 11:44:49 AM
Maybe this is the "everyone is texting while driving" visualization.

For Henderson, I would not be surprised in the slightest.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on August 20, 2022, 01:41:58 PM
Maybe this is the "everyone is texting while driving" visualization.

For Henderson, I would not be surprised in the slightest.

The Henderson sign looked like a tombstone, especially with all the daisies around it. I thought I was driving into a cemetery.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: royo6022 on August 20, 2022, 03:49:56 PM
Maybe this is the "everyone is texting while driving" visualization.

For Henderson, I would not be surprised in the slightest.

The Henderson sign looked like a tombstone, especially with all the daisies around it. I thought I was driving into a cemetery.

I kind of thought the same thing. Their rendering went a little overboard with the landscaping.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NE2 on December 26, 2022, 08:42:42 PM
Spam
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Thegeet on December 30, 2022, 09:34:21 PM
Spam
…?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on December 30, 2022, 10:50:39 PM
Spam
…?
The OP took down the post NE2 commented on, that was posted in this and several other forums here. It is still up at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.2400, Reply #2415, if you're that curious.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 31, 2022, 01:30:13 AM
Spam
The most honest post SPUI has written on AAroads.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mvak36 on March 29, 2023, 10:53:26 AM
https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/news/bi-state-agreement-paves-way-for-new-ohio-river-bridge/

Quote

Advances engineering services and financial planning for I-69 Ohio River Crossing

A bi-state agreement between Kentucky and Indiana means the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (ORX) that will connect Henderson, Kentucky and Evansville, Indiana is a step closer to reality. The states have signed an initial Memorandum of Agreement to allow preliminary development and financial planning to move forward for ORX Section 2, the new river crossing.

“Completing this important interstate connection has been a top priority for my administration,”  said Gov. Andy Beshear. “This agreement is a critical first step that will move us closer to construction. Bridging communities brings states together, and it opens the door to new economic opportunities. That’s why it’s so gratifying to see momentum on another Ohio River crossing in our state. Two transformational projects are moving forward with the Brent Spence companion bridge in northern Kentucky and now ORX in western Kentucky.”

ORX Section 2 Initial Phase

This initial phase of the project will focus on preliminary engineering services, cost estimates, right-of-way plans, traffic and revenue forecasting, and other services to support a future Bi-State Development Agreement for ORX Section 2, a key next step for the project.

“The Crossroads of America is more than a motto for Indiana. It’s a mission,”  said Gov. Eric J. Holcomb. “That’s why it’s so important to see this generational project progressing forward. Our goal is to improve connectivity for all Hoosiers, and we know strong infrastructure puts us in an even stronger position for economic development and continued successes. Connecting our states will improve the region and make a difference for Hoosiers for decades to come.”

The preliminary engineering services include pursuing grant opportunities and other financial planning to identify opportunities to accelerate the project timeline.

A request for proposal (RFP) for engineering services to support the initial phase of the project was posted March 14. Responses are due April 5 with a consultant expected to be selected by the end of April. Work is anticipated to begin this summer.

Both KYTC and INDOT will have representatives on the bi-state management team. KYTC will administer the contract and the states will evenly divide costs for the project. Those costs are expected to be around $3 million.

ORX: Delivering a Mega-Project

I-69 ORX is divided into three sections for project delivery. Construction on ORX Section 1, the Kentucky approach, started in summer 2022 and is expected to be complete by the end of 2025. It’s being led by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC).

ORX Section 2 is a bi-state project that includes the new river crossing. Construction is currently scheduled to begin in 2027 and be complete in 2031. Opportunities will be explored to accelerate the project.

ORX Section 3, the Indiana approach, is expected to let this fall with construction expected to begin in early 2024. Work is expected to be complete in 2026. It’s being led by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT).

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2023, 11:14:43 AM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on March 29, 2023, 12:14:11 PM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?

John J. Audubon Bridge. Lord knows there's enough stuff named after Wendell Ford and William Natcher in that part of Kentucky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Thegeet on March 29, 2023, 12:26:44 PM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?
The I-69 Bridge. Just to keep it simple and easy. Hehe.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Bill C. on March 29, 2023, 04:35:55 PM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?

I'd like to see it named for historical television personality Marcia Yockey.

The Marcia Yockey Memorial Bridge has a nice ring to it even if it doesn't go into her home town of Newburgh.

Marcia was a unique individual who deeply loved Evansville and its surroundings. People in that part of Kentucky loved her as well. I cannot think of anyone more deserving of the honor.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: bmeiser on March 31, 2023, 12:25:36 AM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?
Bridgy McBridge Face

Pixel 7

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on May 17, 2023, 02:43:27 PM

INDOT recently hosted an Industry Forum for the I-69 ORX project Section 3. A PowerPoint presentation was used to present an overview of the entire ORX project with a focus on Section 3.

For those interested, here's that presentation. (https://www.in.gov/indot/files/I-69-Ohio-River-Crossing-Section-3-Industry-Forum-Presentation-April-2023.pdf) It's 43 pages in total. Lots of good stuff.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on May 17, 2023, 02:51:02 PM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?

French Lick Bridge
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on May 17, 2023, 03:40:50 PM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?

"69"

(https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/beavis-and-butt-head.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on May 17, 2023, 05:57:23 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if INDOT gave away US 41 between veterans and i-64.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: tdindy88 on May 17, 2023, 06:15:29 PM
I do like the interchange design for Veterans and I-69, much better than having a giant loop for eastbound Veterans to northbound I-69 that they had on earlier designs.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: CtrlAltDel on May 17, 2023, 09:02:08 PM
If the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge were given a name, what would any of you want it to be called?

The CtrlAltDel Bridge, to satisfy my boundless ego.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on May 17, 2023, 09:08:09 PM
I do like the interchange design for Veterans and I-69, much better than having a giant loop for eastbound Veterans to northbound I-69 that they had on earlier designs.

This is the best design for the area, glad they did it. not sure what they meant by access road from weinbach I didn't see that anywhere on the exhibit.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on May 17, 2023, 09:17:38 PM
not sure what they meant by access road from weinbach I didn't see that anywhere on the exhibit.
I read that to mean construction/use of a temporary construction access road to the new terrain 69 corridor to/from Weinbach Ave, for moving equipment and materials and labor, etc

It was a bit vague in the pdf presentation, agreed
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SW Indiana on June 15, 2023, 04:59:21 PM
There are 7 new bridge construction contracts to be bid on 11/01 listed on INDOT's bid letting via the website, related to the 69 crossing on the Indiana side.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 15, 2023, 08:56:45 PM
New July 2023 GSV from US-41/Pennyrile Parkway near Van Wyk Road east of Henderson, showing construction where I-69 will eventually depart the existing alignment and head northeast toward US-60. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8453681,-87.5662562,3a,75y,122.32h,81.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so24ond_OD__pFzXGQn0hNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

And at US-60, no major work has started there yet, but the ROW has been fallowed in anticipation of construction starting soon.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8636867,-87.5246118,3a,53.8y,196.42h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOM4yg6bMWV1eWazKrg-gRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on August 22, 2023, 07:57:22 AM
Joint Indiana/Kentucky grant application

Quote
Gov. Andy Beshear Announces Kentucky, Indiana Applying for $632.3 Million
Federal Grant to Advance Interstate 69 Ohio River Crossing Bi-State Mega Project

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Aug. 21, 2023) — Gov. Andy Beshear today announced that Kentucky and
Indiana are jointly applying for a $632.3 million federal grant for the Interstate 69 Ohio River
Crossing project at Henderson, Kentucky, and Evansville, Indiana.

“Our administration has pledged to seek and compete for every available federal dollar for this
much anticipated and long-needed project. This application, in concert with our partners at the
Indiana Department of Transportation, follows through on that pledge,”  Gov. Beshear said.
“Completing the crossing is critical for connectivity, safety and the competitiveness of our
economies. But its importance extends far beyond this region, and that makes it worthy of
significant federal funding. It’s important nationally because the crossing will close a major gap
in the I-69 corridor. It’s important internationally because I-69 is a major freight corridor
stretching from Canada to Mexico,”  Gov. Beshear said.

The Indiana DOT and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet submitted the application for funding
through the Multimodal Discretionary Grant Program, which was created as part of the 2021
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The two states propose to put up $513.7 million from other
funding sources if the grant is approved. The states already have obligated $265 million toward
environmental studies and construction of the first section of the project in Henderson.

The $1.4 billion project, which has been branded I-69 ORX, is one of three mega-projects that
have been at the top of Gov. Beshear’s transportation priority list, along with the $3.6 billion
Brent Spence Bridge Corridor Project linking Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati and the $400
million expansion and extension of the Mountain Parkway through Eastern Kentucky.

The I-69 ORX project has three sections:

- Section 1: The Kentucky approach, which will extend I-69 in Kentucky by 6 miles, from
where it currently ends at its intersection with the Henderson Bypass (KY 425) to the
Ohio River. Section 1 has three new or rebuilt interchanges, nine new land bridges and
seven rehabilitated bridges. Gov. Beshear broke ground for Section 1 in June 2022.

- Section 2: A new, four-lane Ohio River bridge. Construction is scheduled to begin in
2027 and be completed in 2031. However, if awarded the grant, the two states will be
able to accelerate the timeline.

- Section 3: The Indiana approach. INDOT plans to take bids for the project late this year,
begin construction in 2024 and complete the project in 2026.

INDOT traffic projections anticipate more than 50,000 vehicle river crossings per day by 2045,
easily within the capacity of the new I-69 bridge and its approaches. They will be built to modern
interstate standards — two 12-foot-wide driving lanes in each direction with outside shoulders at
least 10 feet wide and inside shoulders of no less than 4 feet.

I-69 currently is connected in the Henderson-Evansville region by way of U.S. 41, which crosses
the Ohio River on two bridges that were not designed for interstate travel. The northbound span
was built in 1932. The southbound bridge was added in 1965. Both spans are rated “adequate”
for their legal load requirements but becoming increasingly costly and difficult to maintain,
hurting the corridor’s reliability for freight movement.

The new I-69 bridge will be reliable, constructed to be more resilient to extreme weather, and
equipped in ways to improve safety, including efficient LED lighting and new signage.
“This project is critical to future economic development and equally important for safety,”
Kentucky Transportation Secretary Jim Gray said. “It aligns with the goals and objectives of the
National Roadway Safety Strategy from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ibthebigd on August 22, 2023, 08:10:05 AM
Could this grant help so the bridge doesn't have to be a toll bridge

SM-G996U

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 22, 2023, 01:59:27 PM
Could this grant help so the bridge doesn't have to be a toll bridge

SM-G996U

I don't see why not, since a similar grant was awarded for the Brent Spence Bridge to be built without tolls.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2023, 09:10:08 PM
Isn't building the future Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge as a toll bridge a done deal? Maybe The Twins Bridge should also be tolled as a way of discouraging toll shun-pikers.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on August 23, 2023, 12:14:25 AM
Maybe The Twins Bridge should also be tolled as a way of discouraging toll shun-pikers.
No.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 23, 2023, 12:00:15 PM
Maybe The Twins Bridge should also be tolled as a way of discouraging toll shun-pikers.
No.
I would agree that at least the original remaining bridge of US 41 should remain free.  If they get a 600 million dollar grant it may help lower tolls, but you'll still see them on the bridge since the cost is so high.  It still would be nice for it to be 3 lanes each way from the beginning since traffic is significant already, and will just be growing.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on August 23, 2023, 02:38:33 PM
There aren't the traffic counts there to justify a six-lane bridge or the continued maintenance of both US 41 bridges. The older of the US 41 bridges will be maintained as it is in better structural condition, and a four-lane structure will be provided for Interstate 69 traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 23, 2023, 03:13:43 PM
I think US highways aren't normally allowed to be tolled, unless there is a free alternative nearby. I don't think they will ever consider tolling 41.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Brandon on August 23, 2023, 03:28:24 PM
I think US highways aren't normally allowed to be tolled, unless there is a free alternative nearby. I don't think they will ever consider tolling 41.

US-51 between Rockford and South Beloit has entered the chat.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on August 23, 2023, 04:29:56 PM
I think US highways aren't normally allowed to be tolled, unless there is a free alternative nearby. I don't think they will ever consider tolling 41.

US-51 between Rockford and South Beloit has entered the chat.

Please also welcome US 13 in Virginia, US 301 in Maryland, US 74 in North Carolina, US 412 in Oklahoma, US 6 in Rhode Island.
Several other US highways have managed or tolled lanes as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toll_roads_in_the_United_States
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-55 on August 23, 2023, 06:44:10 PM
I think US highways aren't normally allowed to be tolled, unless there is a free alternative nearby. I don't think they will ever consider tolling 41.

US-51 between Rockford and South Beloit has entered the chat.

Please also welcome US 13 in Virginia, US 301 in Maryland, US 74 in North Carolina, US 412 in Oklahoma, US 6 in Rhode Island.
Several other US highways have managed or tolled lanes as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toll_roads_in_the_United_States

 - US 13 crosses the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (17.6 miles) which is far longer than any free bridge anywhere in the world and no alternative could be reasonably expected.
 - US 301's old alignment is still maintained as a series of Delaware state routes, adequate to support the highway before the new road.
 - US 74 remains free on its alignment through Monroe and the bypass is the toll road.
 - US 412 has ALT 412 for the Cherokee Tpk section and US 64 for the Cimarron section as adequate alternates
 - The Clairborne/Pell Newport Bridge is the only toll road in RI, which is not US 6. The truck tolls in the quoted article were removed after a federal ruling.

As for US 51, I am assuming IL-251 was the former alignment before the US route was routed onto the freeway (now I-39).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 23, 2023, 08:06:35 PM
key phrase: UNLESS THERE IS A FREE ALTERNATIVE
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on August 24, 2023, 12:47:19 AM
There aren't the traffic counts there to justify a six-lane bridge or the continued maintenance of both US 41 bridges. The older of the US 41 bridges will be maintained as it is in better structural condition, and a four-lane structure will be provided for Interstate 69 traffic.
If a good amount of local traffic continues to use the original route, say 10,000 AADT or more, it could be a good idea to provide separation between the traffic lanes… putting it in a situation with two head on lanes with no shoulder / room for error may work traffic volume wise, but it is not safe. The likelihood of head-on fatal collisions increases from what is now basically 0.

The I-69 bridges do not need 6 lanes now, but they should definitely be built with wide shoulders to accommodate a third lane each way in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: wriddle082 on August 24, 2023, 05:54:25 AM
The I-69 bridges do not need 6 lanes now, but they should definitely be built with wide shoulders to accommodate a third lane each way in the future.

Yes!  If in the distant future, I-69 is actually completed, and it serves its original intent by carrying truck traffic from border to border, the entire corridor will likely need at least six lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on August 24, 2023, 08:45:42 AM
Miss, Ark, and Louisiana will never build their portions  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on August 24, 2023, 03:59:03 PM
The I-69 bridges do not need 6 lanes now, but they should definitely be built with wide shoulders to accommodate a third lane each way in the future.

Yes!  If in the distant future, I-69 is actually completed, and it serves its original intent by carrying truck traffic from border to border, the entire corridor will likely need at least six lanes.

I would surmise if that were the case, they would simply build a "twin" structure alongside the first bridge and then rehabilitate/reconfigure the first bridge to carry additional lanes in one direction while the second span carries additional lanes in the other.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: rte66man on August 24, 2023, 04:04:46 PM
I think US highways aren't normally allowed to be tolled, unless there is a free alternative nearby. I don't think they will ever consider tolling 41.

US-51 between Rockford and South Beloit has entered the chat.

Please also welcome US 13 in Virginia, US 301 in Maryland, US 74 in North Carolina, US 412 in Oklahoma, US 6 in Rhode Island.
Several other US highways have managed or tolled lanes as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toll_roads_in_the_United_States


Reread the OP. "unless there is a free alternative". US412 as the Cherokee Turnpike has a free alternative in Scenic 412 (old 412). US412 as the Cimarron Turnpike has a free alternative as US64.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-55 on August 24, 2023, 04:35:58 PM
The I-69 bridges do not need 6 lanes now, but they should definitely be built with wide shoulders to accommodate a third lane each way in the future.

Yes!  If in the distant future, I-69 is actually completed, and it serves its original intent by carrying truck traffic from border to border, the entire corridor will likely need at least six lanes.

By the time the whole corridor is complete (50+ years????) it will need a complete rebuild anyway, might as well stay at 4 lanes for now. The bridge should be built with wide shoulders anyway to reflect modern interstate standards, and if really needed can be restriped down the line.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on August 24, 2023, 04:55:26 PM
Based on a hypothetical theory that I-69 would be the sole corridor for shipping goods from Mexico to Canada, the highway would all need to be six lanes. But there are many other corridors (and rail) to select from, where traffic will generate and terminate. To believe that all truck traffic will be funneled on I-69 is based purely on hypotheticals. DOTs build based on existing and projected traffic data.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on August 25, 2023, 06:18:27 AM
IMO, if I-69 were ever completed as planned (and I am a skeptic that I-69 will EVER be constructed between Memphis and Texas), most of its length would not need to be widened to six lanes for many decades, if ever, for a very good reason - the proposed I-69 corridor would mostly be routed through rural under-populated areas with large and medium sized cities spaced relatively far apart.  Between Indianapolis in Houston, I-69 would serve Evansville, Memphis, and Shreveport.  And the only pair of cities within 200 miles of each other in this list would be Evansville and Indianapolis, which is a distance of over 150 miles.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: thefro on August 25, 2023, 10:21:44 AM
IMO, if I-69 were ever completed as planned (and I am a skeptic that I-69 will EVER be constructed between Memphis and Texas), most of its length would not need to be widened to six lanes for many decades, if ever, for a very good reason - the proposed I-69 corridor would mostly be routed through rural under-populated areas with large and medium sized cities spaced relatively far apart.  Between Indianapolis in Houston, I-69 would serve Evansville, Memphis, and Shreveport.  And the only pair of cities within 200 miles of each other in this list would be Evansville and Indianapolis, which is a distance of over 150 miles.

Agreed.  There also will be a bunch of changes by the time I-69 could actually be completed (self-driving vehicles, electric chargers/hydrogen fuel availability determining routing for vehicles, more automatous manufacturing, population changes for various reasons).  Hard to predict what traffic patterns will actually look like.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SEWIGuy on August 25, 2023, 10:38:09 AM
The I-69 bridges do not need 6 lanes now, but they should definitely be built with wide shoulders to accommodate a third lane each way in the future.

Yes!  If in the distant future, I-69 is actually completed, and it serves its original intent by carrying truck traffic from border to border, the entire corridor will likely need at least six lanes.


Why do you think this? There are numerous interstates that carry such traffic now that definitely need three lanes in places, but they don't need to upgrade their entire corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 25, 2023, 12:25:20 PM
According to a quote given to a reporter for a publication called "The Bond Buyer" out of Chicago, the bridge still includes plans for a toll-revenue bond issue. The bond issue will be part of $513.7 million from funding sources other than the federal grant.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on August 25, 2023, 12:30:11 PM
Why do you think this? There are numerous interstates that carry such traffic now that definitely need three lanes in places, but they don't need to upgrade their entire corridor.

Of all vehicle trips, only 5% are over 30 miles according to the DOE. Typically, a good percentage of intermediary distance trips, in addition to long-haul trips, are needed to reach a critical mass requiring additional lanes on an interstate type facility. I-69 between Memphis and Shreveport would be a nice rural bypass of I-40/I-30 but I can't see a similar amount of intermediary traffic on it as I-40/30 given the lack of towns or traffic generators of any size along the route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2023, 12:33:23 PM
That of course assumes Interstate 69 is completed between Shreveport and Memphis, and that is not a given based on what we've all seen so far. Nevertheless, even if 69 is never completed, I hope the right-of-way in the proposed corridor remains open so that completion is always a possibility, even if it takes 100 years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 27, 2023, 05:29:30 PM
None of the rest of rural I-69 in Tennessee, Kentucky, or Indiana is three lanes. All that Kentucky did with the overlap along I-24 was to post I-69 signs alongside the I-24 signs. I don't know why anyone would think that the Ohio River bridge would need to be three lanes when 1.) there will still be the free US 41 bridge between Henderson and Evansville and 2.) the Tennessee and Cumberland River bridges on the I-24 concurrency are just two lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: JREwing78 on August 27, 2023, 06:52:57 PM
It will be evident by about 2050 if the I-69 Ohio River crossing will need additional lanes. At that point they'll have to figure out a financing structure that allows them to pay for a 2nd structure (likely extending the planned tolls). Wisely, it appears both Kentucky and Indiana are in a "Get the damn bridge built!" mode and not allowing "scope creep" to interfere.

I'm curious to see what traffic levels on US-41 stabilize at after the new bridge opens. I suspect it'll end up at around 15,000 vpd, which is at the upper end of viable for a 2-lane bridge. I understand the motivation to ditch the SBD side, but I suspect when the NBD side faces replacement, it'll end up being rebuilt as a 4-lane facility.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 27, 2023, 07:26:09 PM
Maybe the Ohio River Bridge, when it is constructed, should be wide enough to accommodate a third lane in each direction. Just in case the need arises in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: I-55 on August 27, 2023, 08:40:08 PM
Maybe the Ohio River Bridge, when it is constructed, should be wide enough to accommodate a third lane in each direction. Just in case the need arises in the future.

For now build it to 4 lanes with 10 foot right and left shoulders, if the need arises restripe to have 4' left and right shoulders and an additional lane each way
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on August 27, 2023, 08:46:10 PM
Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100. I-69 is still only four lanes around Evansville, and there isn't strong commuter traffic across the river from Henderson to warrant all those lanes, especially if one of the current US41 bridges remains. I still think it's a pipe dream that there's going to be major through truck traffic from Laredo to Detroit along this route. I-69 was always a way to get some new interstate segments built, primarily between Evansville and Indianapolis, that frankly even today don't have the traffic to necessitate that road. The upgrades between Bloomington and Indianapolis were warranted and necessary, but Evansville is a pretty small metro overall, and a few upgrades along US 41 to Terre Haute could have done the trick for billions less.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2023, 09:46:43 PM
I think they should build the four lanes with shoulders and leave a ROW for a parallel twin (if needed).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on August 27, 2023, 09:51:47 PM
Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100. I-69 is still only four lanes around Evansville, and there isn't strong commuter traffic across the river from Henderson to warrant all those lanes, especially if one of the current US41 bridges remains. I still think it's a pipe dream that there's going to be major through truck traffic from Laredo to Detroit along this route. I-69 was always a way to get some new interstate segments built, primarily between Evansville and Indianapolis, that frankly even today don't have the traffic to necessitate that road. The upgrades between Bloomington and Indianapolis were warranted and necessary, but Evansville is a pretty small metro overall, and a few upgrades along US 41 to Terre Haute could have done the trick for billions less.

Unfortunately your logic could be applied to a large percentage of highways in the US.  Do you wait until the roads are busting over before you build, or do you build in anticipation of additional traffic?

Also Evansville was the last metro of its size not connected inside the state of Indiana by an interstate. Yes, that is important.

Pre I-69 AADT:

Indy to Bloomington (IN-37) - 12k to 15k.
Bloomington to Washington (IN-57) - 2k-6k
Washington to I-64 (IN-57) - 3K-5K
I-64 to Ohio River - 24k to 28k.

The weak spot was always going to be between Bloomington and I-64. But just for reference I-69 is very weak in AADT between Ft Wayne and Muncie/Anderson as well but has a high truck percentage.

But that AADT above had a very weak truck percentage. When I-69 is built the AADT will go up for through transit routing, but the truck percentage will most definitely elevate.

I am looking forward to seeing how the AADT will shift towards I-69 when it is finished. Not just the Bloomington - Indy section, I mean absorption of north south traffic from adjoining state highways.

US-41, IN-57, US-231 just to name a few.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 27, 2023, 10:14:36 PM
Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2023, 12:30:37 AM
Regardless of any growth predictions, it would still be wise to construct a large bridge of this scale with the capability of being expanded to six lanes... and not by eliminating/reducing the shoulder. The ultimate design should be three 12 foot lanes in each direction with 10 foot right and left shoulders.

For now until that hypothetical widening is ever (or never) built, two 12 foot lanes, a 22 foot inside shoulder, and a 10 foot right shoulder. Building bridges to handle future expansion is not a new concept - even if the added lane isn't needed now.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on August 28, 2023, 10:40:48 AM
Regardless of any growth predictions, it would still be wise to construct a large bridge of this scale with the capability of being expanded to six lanes... and not by eliminating/reducing the shoulder. The ultimate design should be three 12 foot lanes in each direction with 10 foot right and left shoulders.

For now until that hypothetical widening is ever (or never) built, two 12 foot lanes, a 22 foot inside shoulder, and a 10 foot right shoulder. Building bridges to handle future expansion is not a new concept - even if the added lane isn't needed now.

The easiest and least expensive way of accommodating future expansion would likely involve 2 things-
1. Make the main span a steel girder/concrete deck design that can easily be widened, if the river navigation span length will accommodate it. Typically this would limit the span to 500-600 feet.
2. Widen the piers within the river bottom to accommodate a future widening so that the contractor doesn't need to go back into the river when the eventual widening is done..
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on August 28, 2023, 11:03:31 AM
Four lanes will be fine for the entire lifespan of this bridge.  Not even worth considering building in enough room for a third lane.  That's so speculative as to be ridiculous.  Shit costs too much to build as it is without throwing in extra materials for fantasy growth.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 28, 2023, 12:44:10 PM
Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ibthebigd on August 28, 2023, 01:24:06 PM
Right now going thru Evansville is only 30 minutes slower from Indianapolis to Nashville

SM-G996U

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: bmeiser on August 28, 2023, 01:25:42 PM
Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/F3G8ymQkOkbII/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952iy9bisjgtagze2tjzzpi7rlijairhop9wktk6me5&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: zzcarp on August 28, 2023, 03:49:21 PM
Unless Evansville explodes into a metro of 1 million people, there won't be a need for six lanes on those bridges in 2050 or even 2100.

If this were necessarily the case then there are several other interstates that shouldn't need six lanes but do through smaller areas.

There's also the possibility that INDOT may upgrade some or all of the US 41 corridor to a freeway by 2100, or that more traffic starts using the I-69/Pennyrile Parkway/I-24 route between Indianapolis and Nashville over I-65.

Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/F3G8ymQkOkbII/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952iy9bisjgtagze2tjzzpi7rlijairhop9wktk6me5&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

From google maps, it's about 4.5 hours from Nashville to Indy via I-65 and 4 hrs 50 minutes via I-24/Pennyrile/I-69. The I-69 route is about 30 miles longer.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: bmeiser on August 28, 2023, 04:01:54 PM
I'd totally add 20 minutes to my >4hr trip to avoid the Indiana / Louisville portions of 65. That's only going to be a smaller difference once the bridge is complete.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: wriddle082 on August 28, 2023, 04:17:39 PM
They will most definitely take the new route to avoid both Nashville and Louisville if they’re traveling between Memphis and Indianapolis.  Memphis is an origin and destination point for a lot of trucks.  They will do everything they can to avoid Nashville.  It will put a big strain on US 51 in West TN, but that mileage is small compared to the overall route.  And once TDOT finally wakes up and sees the impact this will have on 51, they’ll finalize prioritize building 69.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 28, 2023, 07:30:07 PM
Tennessee will wise up and build Interstate 69? Not until Congress gives them federal funding to complete environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition and construction (as stated by Wikipedia's Interstate 69 in Tennessee page). Like everything else, Tennessee will likely get a raspberry from Congress about doing that. Also, there is the matter of constructing the Troy Bypass (which as far as I know doesn't have a construction date yet). But that's in Tennessee. As for the Ohio River Bridge, at least it is a go for being constructed within the next 10 years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Revive 755 on August 28, 2023, 10:33:40 PM
I think they should build the four lanes with shoulders and leave a ROW for a parallel twin (if needed).

And without any design features that preclude switching it to one way traffic in the future if a twin is built (the center tower designs of the Sunshine Skyway or the Clark Bridge at Alton, IL come to mind).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: TheCleanDemon on August 29, 2023, 07:43:00 AM
Unless there is a major incident on I-65, no one is going to go that far out of their way to avoid Louisville.

It is anecdotal, but I know people that are already taking 69 south out of Indy and going through Evansville to get to Nashville even with the ongoing construction and having to cross the "Twin Bridges" in Evansville.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on August 29, 2023, 01:52:34 PM
They will most definitely take the new route to avoid both Nashville and Louisville if they’re traveling between Memphis and Indianapolis.  Memphis is an origin and destination point for a lot of trucks.  They will do everything they can to avoid Nashville.  It will put a big strain on US 51 in West TN, but that mileage is small compared to the overall route.  And once TDOT finally wakes up and sees the impact this will have on 51, they’ll finalize prioritize building 69.

Memphis and Indy? Sure, because it appears to be a more direct route through a rural area with no big cities. I"ve already vowed never to drive I-40 between Nashville and Memphis ever again. That road is just so long and aggravating.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on September 07, 2023, 03:25:37 PM

According to an  Inside Indiana Business report (https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/federal-funding-could-speed-up-ohio-river-crossing-timeline), if the full $632 million federal grant, which Indiana and Kentucky applied for last month, is awarded in timely fashion, construction of the Ohio bridge would likely be moved up to 2025, two years earlier than previously planned.

The article should be available to read for most who wish to do so. However, if one regularly browses material on the Inside Indiana Business website (https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/) and is not a subscriber, access to the article may not be granted in full.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: westerninterloper on September 07, 2023, 03:47:40 PM
They will most definitely take the new route to avoid both Nashville and Louisville if they’re traveling between Memphis and Indianapolis.  Memphis is an origin and destination point for a lot of trucks.  They will do everything they can to avoid Nashville.  It will put a big strain on US 51 in West TN, but that mileage is small compared to the overall route.  And once TDOT finally wakes up and sees the impact this will have on 51, they’ll finalize prioritize building 69.

Memphis and Indy? Sure, because it appears to be a more direct route through a rural area with no big cities. I"ve already vowed never to drive I-40 between Nashville and Memphis ever again. That road is just so long and aggravating.


It might be worth noting that I-55/57/70 is 30 minutes shorter between Memphis and Indianapolis than the Nashville-Louisville route.

Doubtful anyone was taking that anyway to go directly to Indy from Memphis.

A completed I-69 will be a bit shorter than the westerly route, but not by much.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Indianapolis,+Indiana/Memphis,+Tennessee/@37.4339649,-90.6236938,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x886b50ffa7796a03:0xd68e9df640b9ea7c!2m2!1d-86.158068!2d39.768403!1m5!1m1!1s0x87d57e1eea439745:0xd193f315601ab6fe!2m2!1d-90.0489801!2d35.1495343!3e0?entry=ttu

I happen to Loooooove driving I-57 in Southern Illinois - beautiful hills in Little Egypt, and the road is very well constructed and pretty lightly traveled.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on September 08, 2023, 03:50:25 PM
I happen to Loooooove driving I-57 in Southern Illinois - beautiful hills in Little Egypt, and the road is very well constructed and pretty lightly traveled.
The segment between 24 and 64 has a lot of truck traffic, especially during the week. Not as bad on the weekends, usually
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2023, 04:15:29 PM
I happen to Loooooove driving I-57 in Southern Illinois - beautiful hills in Little Egypt, and the road is very well constructed and pretty lightly traveled.
The segment between 24 and 64 has a lot of truck traffic, especially during the week. Not as bad on the weekends, usually

I've driven that part of 57 several times and "a lot" is relative compared to 65/94 between Indy and Chicago.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on September 08, 2023, 09:18:32 PM
I happen to Loooooove driving I-57 in Southern Illinois - beautiful hills in Little Egypt, and the road is very well constructed and pretty lightly traveled.
The segment between 24 and 64 has a lot of truck traffic, especially during the week. Not as bad on the weekends, usually

I've driven that part of 57 several times and "a lot" is relative compared to 65/94 between Indy and Chicago.
I won’t even mention the truck traffic on 80/94. “Concrete Railroad”  aptly applies. Is what it is to get around Lake Michigan

Regarding 65, I agree, but the Chicago-Indy traffic is more used to it and does better. The Southern IL population is a little different driving.

When I still lived up in Chicagoland I didn’t like traveling I-65 between Indy and 80/94, but I-57 downright scares me sometimes. And the number of Morning or Evening news stories with a 57 closure and fatal accident is way too frequent. Thankfully, where I live, the segment between 24 and 64 doesn’t have much utility for me

IDOT is continuing their project to 6-lane the segment. It is fully funded as well, just being done in stages. Will be much better when complete.

The fact that INDOT hasn’t 6-laned 65 fully between 80/94 and 465 is downright bad. Needed done 15 years ago, and traffic, both commercial and passenger, has not lessened. That said, I think there is another thread for Indiana and 65 6-lane progress
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on September 09, 2023, 02:24:53 PM
It's not ITB quality, but here is some recent construction of I-69 in Henderson KY for the Ohio River Bridge.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53175623399_08a8b9d547_k.jpg)

New bridge over the North Fork of Canoe Creek.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53175914508_1dc5cbe7cf_k.jpg)

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Sapphuby on September 09, 2023, 02:55:00 PM
Looks like GSV, so I've gotta check this out. I've got this and the Indianapolis area construction on my watch, and I'm loving every bit of it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on September 09, 2023, 03:48:17 PM
Looks like GSV, so I've gotta check this out. I've got this and the Indianapolis area construction on my watch, and I'm loving every bit of it.

GSV = Yes

Images are from July 2023.

I checked Bing Aerial and they don't have it yet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on September 09, 2023, 03:55:09 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53175794629_0119979d5f_k.jpg)

If you look in the background you can see the pylons for Kimsey Lane being stood up.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: brad2971 on September 09, 2023, 07:18:46 PM
Miss, Ark, and Louisiana will never build their portions  :-D

Neither will Tennessee, at least from Dyersburg to Memphis. Not unless the USDOT or the state's congressional delegation provides at least 90% of funding for that section.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on September 21, 2023, 04:29:28 PM
Inspection time again for the US 41 SB bridge between Evansville and Henderson, and this one's gonna take a while:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2023/09/21/lengthy-lane-closure-coming-to-u-s-41-southbound-twin-bridge/70921948007/?fbclid=IwAR1eGUkbNDg1ZztHFQV8CcmeecdYx1Rj9aNewrY6HW3-Pom3x9MpA0UIgC4

A December 2021 federal mandate requires states to inspect the welds on bridges made of T-1 steel for soundness before March 2024. The southbound bridge, which was completed in 1965, is made of the same steel as the I-64 and I-40 bridges that were closed for long periods in recent years due to welds cracking.

Traffic will be restricted to one lane southbound and no loads over 12' wide will be allowed.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on September 21, 2023, 05:38:07 PM
Inspection time again for the US 41 SB bridge between Evansville and Henderson, and this one's gonna take a while:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2023/09/21/lengthy-lane-closure-coming-to-u-s-41-southbound-twin-bridge/70921948007/?fbclid=IwAR1eGUkbNDg1ZztHFQV8CcmeecdYx1Rj9aNewrY6HW3-Pom3x9MpA0UIgC4

A December 2021 federal mandate requires states to inspect the welds on bridges made of T-1 steel for soundness before March 2024. The southbound bridge, which was completed in 1965, is made of the same steel as the I-64 and I-40 bridges that were closed for long periods in recent years due to welds cracking.

Traffic will be restricted to one lane southbound and no loads over 12' wide will be allowed.

I imagine they'll find some deficiencies. Better to be found, than overlooked.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on September 24, 2023, 03:37:15 PM
Inspection time again for the US 41 SB bridge between Evansville and Henderson, and this one's gonna take a while:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2023/09/21/lengthy-lane-closure-coming-to-u-s-41-southbound-twin-bridge/70921948007/?fbclid=IwAR1eGUkbNDg1ZztHFQV8CcmeecdYx1Rj9aNewrY6HW3-Pom3x9MpA0UIgC4

A December 2021 federal mandate requires states to inspect the welds on bridges made of T-1 steel for soundness before March 2024. The southbound bridge, which was completed in 1965, is made of the same steel as the I-64 and I-40 bridges that were closed for long periods in recent years due to welds cracking.

Traffic will be restricted to one lane southbound and no loads over 12' wide will be allowed.

I imagine they'll find some deficiencies. Better to be found, than overlooked.
Is this one of the reasons that they planned to keep the older bridge and demolish the newer bridge when the I-69 bridge is completed?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on September 25, 2023, 06:31:48 AM
Yes. It's a matter of "which one costs less to keep."
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: seicer on September 25, 2023, 02:19:38 PM
Correct.

I've noticed a lot of not-that-old pony trusses with welded plates in recent years being replaced with bolted plates. I am wondering if we are moving on from using welds in bridge construction because of the potential for cracking due to stresses or poor welds.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on September 25, 2023, 04:49:09 PM
Correct.

I've noticed a lot of not-that-old pony trusses with welded plates in recent years being replaced with bolted plates. I am wondering if we are moving on from using welds in bridge construction because of the potential for cracking due to stresses or poor welds.

Not too many new trusses being built today, welded or bolted. There are advantages and disadvantages with each type for fastening the members to gusset plates in a truss. Theoretically a weld is a stronger connection but it is rigid and sometimes can fatigue more quickly than a bolted connection, where a little flexibility can be a good thing. Also, the requirements and process for field welding truss elements are somewhat more complicated than making a bolted connection, lending bolts as an easier constructable method.

Other than that, welds are pretty common in bridge construction; nearly any steel girder deeper than 40" is pieced together with shop welds.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on September 26, 2023, 12:44:53 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cU2ueuJ1wKBf8skN6
I’m seeing this on GSV, but satellite imagery don’t show didley.

Then on US 60 no work has commenced.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zSGcgxWe3FLxA4Mu6

The state website shows US 60 and KY 351 to be dumbbell interchanges.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 11:46:54 AM
Since construction of any project takes time, check back in a few years to see if any updates have been made to the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 02:09:17 AM
Since construction of any project takes time, check back in a few years to see if any updates have been made to the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge corridor.

I’m going to take that part won’t take long. It’s obvious that they’re working south to north, however the bridge itself is to be started in 2025 which will begin from US 60 to the state line north of the river. Indiana will commence in 2024 as that’s another section and a new interchange with present I-69 will get done ( the remainder of today’s I-69 will become part of an extended Veterans Parkway).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on November 09, 2023, 05:06:52 PM

Here's a representational bird's-eye view of the ORX project. Although a year old, it's still pertinent. I checked to see if it had been posted previously, but it seems not.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Lyon Wonder on November 09, 2023, 08:33:43 PM
Is the future I-69 Ohio River bridge still going to be a cable-stayed as originally envisioned?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: pianocello on November 09, 2023, 11:00:54 PM
Is the future I-69 Ohio River bridge still going to be a cable-stayed as originally envisioned?


That final decision hasn't been made yet (as of last month).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 10, 2023, 12:24:18 PM

Here's a representational bird's-eye view of the ORX project. Although a year old, it's still pertinent. I checked to see if it had been posted previously, but it seems not.


Are they really building that massively overkill wye interchange on the Kentucky side?  I thought that was going to be a simple, low speed trumpet.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: zzcarp on November 10, 2023, 02:49:48 PM
Are they really building that massively overkill wye interchange on the Kentucky side?  I thought that was going to be a simple, low speed trumpet.

No, it will be a trumpet. From the I-69 ORX website (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/section-1-kentucky/):

(https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/US-41-Map-1.png)

I've seen some images in the past showing that the trumpet may be converted to a conventional interchange that connects to Kimsey Lane as a local connector once the I-69 bridges are complete and US 41 isn't the detour route.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: mgk920 on November 11, 2023, 12:11:49 AM
Are they really building that massively overkill wye interchange on the Kentucky side?  I thought that was going to be a simple, low speed trumpet.

No, it will be a trumpet. From the I-69 ORX website (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/section-1-kentucky/):

(https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/US-41-Map-1.png)

I've seen some images in the past showing that the trumpet may be converted to a conventional interchange that connects to Kimsey Lane as a local connector once the I-69 bridges are complete and US 41 isn't the detour route.

I can easily go along with that idea.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Henry on November 11, 2023, 12:59:53 AM
Is the future I-69 Ohio River bridge still going to be a cable-stayed as originally envisioned?


That final decision hasn't been made yet (as of last month).
Besides, the video depicts it as a regular box girder bridge. Based on that, I figure the Mississippi River bridge is also unknown.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: pianocello on November 11, 2023, 09:28:13 AM
Is the future I-69 Ohio River bridge still going to be a cable-stayed as originally envisioned?
That final decision hasn't been made yet (as of last month).
Besides, the video depicts it as a regular box girder bridge. Based on that, I figure the Mississippi River bridge is also unknown.

I should elaborate on my previous statement. Based on what I've heard, they're still between a box girder, cable-stayed, and a truss system similar to the existing Twin Bridges. Each has its pros and cons, including initial cost, construction duration, maintenance cost over time, and ease of access for maintenance, among others. The final determination will be made as part of the preliminary stage of the design-build process in a few years.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on November 12, 2023, 07:56:16 PM
Is the future I-69 Ohio River bridge still going to be a cable-stayed as originally envisioned?
That final decision hasn't been made yet (as of last month).
Besides, the video depicts it as a regular box girder bridge. Based on that, I figure the Mississippi River bridge is also unknown.

I should elaborate on my previous statement. Based on what I've heard, they're still between a box girder, cable-stayed, and a truss system similar to the existing Twin Bridges. Each has its pros and cons, including initial cost, construction duration, maintenance cost over time, and ease of access for maintenance, among others. The final determination will be made as part of the preliminary stage of the design-build process in a few years.
I would think the main span across the Ohio River would be too long to support a box girder structure.  Just looking at the Ohio River in that area, it's about 2,000 feet bank-to-bank. I don't think you could build a box girder bridge without putting one or more piers in the river. Placing bridge piers in the river raises two concerns:  the piers become a navigation hazard to shipping on the river, and the strong currents of the river create a concern for scour that could compromise the bridge piers.  I would argue a for a cable-stayed design with the piers supporting the main span placed on opposite shores to eliminate the concerns over placing the bridge piers in the river.

For reference, the longest box girder span in the world is the Taoer River Bridge in China, with a main span length of 338 meters (1,108 feet), while the world's longest cable-stayed span is on the Russky Bridge in Russia, with a main span of 1,104 meters (3,622 feet).

https://english.cscec.com/CompanyNews/CorporateNews/202206/3530744.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_cable-stayed_bridge_spans
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on November 12, 2023, 08:45:35 PM
Most of the bridges across the Ohio in this area have at least three piers in the river. The Glover Cary (Blue) bridge has six. The Twin Bridges, Cummings and Natcher bridges each have three. Scour has never presented a problem, and barge hits (the most common navigational accident) have been extremely rare. Since 2008, the twins have been hit three times, the Cary once, with no damage to either that caused more than a brief closure for inspection purposes.  I found no reports of hits on either the Natcher or Cummings.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on November 12, 2023, 09:05:01 PM
Most of the bridges across the Ohio in this area have at least three piers in the river. The Glover Cary (Blue) bridge has six. The Twin Bridges, Cummings and Natcher bridges each have three. Scour has never presented a problem, and barge hits (the most common navigational accident) have been extremely rare. Since 2008, the twins have been hit three times, the Cary once, with no damage to either that caused more than a brief closure for inspection purposes.  I found no reports of hits on either the Natcher or Cummings.

Over the last 20 years or so, vessel collision standards are so rigorous that modern piers are virtually immune to the effects of a runaway single barge or tow collision. As far as scour, it depends on the foundation. Piers or drilled shafts founded in rock are relatively immune to the effects of scour, while friction piles set in sandy loams or clays are more susceptible. As far as bridge spans, lately we've seen 400 to 600 foot navigation spans deemed acceptable by the Coast Guard, depending on the width of the navigable portion and any upstream river bends that make navigation more tricky.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on November 17, 2023, 06:49:39 PM
Cross posted from the Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana forum topic:

The contract to build Section 3, the Indiana approach to the proposed I-69 bridge over the Ohio River, was awarded today. ORX Constructors, a joint venture led by Walsh Construction, was the winning bidder. The Constructors JV's bid narrowing beat out a bid by Lunda Construction, a Wisconsin firm. Ragle Inc. of Newburgh, Indiana, also submitted a bid.

After cost proposal price adjustments, the winning bid came in at $185,931,122.20. Lunda's bid, after adjustments, was $187,178,971.00. Both bids were well below the engineer's estimate of $284,140,008.

Examine the official INDOT bid tabulations for this special letting here (https://www.in.gov/indot/doing-business-with-indot/files/20231101_Official-Tab-A.pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 17, 2023, 08:13:57 PM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on November 19, 2023, 04:08:06 PM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?

It'll probably be eaten up by change orders.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2023, 07:06:40 PM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?

It'll probably be eaten up by change orders.
Something is screwed up with a $100m underage.  I agree with HB, that the devil will definitely be in construction on this one, except I wouldn't expect it to eat up the entire $100m
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on November 19, 2023, 07:16:31 PM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?
If it were me, I would hold that $100M as "contingency." Something tells me that at least two of the bidders may have low-balled their bids to get the job. It reeks of the same stench that the debacle with Section 5 (Bloomington-Martinsville) had, where that bidder low-balled their bid by $80M and the contract was terminated midway through that project because the prime contractor ran out of money to finish the job. I sure hope that doesn't happen here.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rothman on November 19, 2023, 07:21:28 PM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?
If it were me, I would hold that $100M as "contingency." Something tells me that at least two of the bidders may have low-balled their bids to get the job. It reeks of the same stench that the debacle with Section 5 (Bloomington-Martinsville) had, where that bidder low-balled their bid by $80M and the contract was terminated midway through that project because the prime contractor ran out of money to finish the job. I sure hope that doesn't happen here.
Contingency means that it will get eaten up by change orders, just like HB said.  Contingency is built into PS&E.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Life in Paradise on November 20, 2023, 11:46:13 AM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?
If it were me, I would hold that $100M as "contingency." Something tells me that at least two of the bidders may have low-balled their bids to get the job. It reeks of the same stench that the debacle with Section 5 (Bloomington-Martinsville) had, where that bidder low-balled their bid by $80M and the contract was terminated midway through that project because the prime contractor ran out of money to finish the job. I sure hope that doesn't happen here.
Contingency means that it will get eaten up by change orders, just like HB said.  Contingency is built into PS&E.
What is interesting is that at least two of the bids were close to the same amount.  I wonder what Ragle's bid was.  It may be a case that there were errors in the bid language.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: SEWIGuy on November 20, 2023, 01:40:19 PM
Is this done intentionally since there are so many unknowns in the building process? So maybe they wrote the RFP a little "loose" because they know a specific bid will be difficult to determine?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on November 20, 2023, 05:58:23 PM

What is interesting is that at least two of the bids were close to the same amount.  I wonder what Ragle's bid was.  It may be a case that there were errors in the bid language.
Ragle's bid was $206.2M, so not far off the others for a project of this magnitude. Of the 3 contenders, only Ragle did not receive a cost proposal price adjustment, while both Lunda and ORX did receive reductions. Not sure what the reason for the adjustments were, maybe they had alternative value engineering proposals that cut the "as bid" price that the state accepted. Note that these were "design-build" proposals instead of traditional pay item bids, so there is usually a lot of flexibility in how the contractor meets the design intent. I've seen projects come in 30-40% under estimate before, sometimes it is a blown estimate where they forgot a critical pay item, other times it is just aggressive pricing where the contractor has a means and methods or material pricing advantage over the others. And the possibility of change orders is always there, depending on how accurate the existing conditions and proposed improvements were described pre-bid.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: hbelkins on January 29, 2024, 01:42:56 PM
Tolls may be off the table for the Ohio River bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/live/3CTtO5xRk1w?si=Q6GzWL-la17Hs5-W&t=4294

Forward to 1:11:30.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on January 29, 2024, 03:04:35 PM
Tolls may be off the table for the Ohio River bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/live/3CTtO5xRk1w?si=Q6GzWL-la17Hs5-W&t=4294

Forward to 1:11:30.
That's Governor Beshear expressing his opinion concerning tolls for the Ohio River Bridge, but I'm not going to say it's a foregone conclusion the I-69 bridge won't ultimately be tolled. As Governor Beshear mentioned, Kentucky might have some additional funds they could throw at the bridge, but Indiana would also have to kick in additional funding to make the bridge toll-free.  A free I-69 bridge is not a done deal by a longshot, but at least the conversation is happening.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2024, 05:10:28 PM
Agreed. I’m more than happy that they’re at least having a conversation conversation about it.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Rick Powell on January 29, 2024, 05:56:28 PM
Agreed. I’m more than happy that they’re at least having a conversation about it.

We have a project in IL that recently went all the way to tolling equipment being designed, ordered, and installed (although never used since the bridge isn't open yet) and money was found, mostly from the state, that eliminated the need for tolling. https://barringtonhills-il.gov/longmeadow-parkway-2024/
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: jnewkirk77 on January 30, 2024, 11:45:28 AM
Tolls may be off the table for the Ohio River bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/live/3CTtO5xRk1w?si=Q6GzWL-la17Hs5-W&t=4294

Forward to 1:11:30.
That's Governor Beshear expressing his opinion concerning tolls for the Ohio River Bridge, but I'm not going to say it's a foregone conclusion the I-69 bridge won't ultimately be tolled. As Governor Beshear mentioned, Kentucky might have some additional funds they could throw at the bridge, but Indiana would also have to kick in additional funding to make the bridge toll-free.  A free I-69 bridge is not a done deal by a longshot, but at least the conversation is happening.

Is it OK to be "cautiously confident?" When you look at the boxes the ORX project checks - interstate commerce, improved safety, free flow of traffic, etc. - I think the grant money will come. Especially considering IN & KY are so far along in construction and planning.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 14, 2024, 04:29:08 PM
Indiana section to begin this summer: https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/?fbclid=IwAR2S2orLO5tBFizY3Xyhj6jPi-clg0kyW6NROUIEPscWLSt6uKQqo5TVP8I_aem_AYYIhsDR2a2MUroF2qefnryVEUMqp1fAGDm-erc3GsJQ1FQrCXYTB_tU-eweCXdQF1k
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2024, 11:13:50 PM
Google Maps has been updated to show construction of future Interstate 69 in Kentucky north of US 41: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8478746,-87.5618769,1475m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. It's not much, but it's a start.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 19, 2024, 11:38:45 AM
Google Maps has been updated to show construction of future Interstate 69 in Kentucky north of US 41: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8478746,-87.5618769,1475m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. It's not much, but it's a start.
Looks like it might have been from last summer when the aerial imagery was taken.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: silverback1065 on February 19, 2024, 04:36:48 PM
are there any plans or maps of the bridge or the approach areas?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: KelleyCook on February 19, 2024, 05:34:55 PM
are there any plans or maps of the bridge or the approach areas?  :hmmm:

https://www.in.gov/indot/files/I-69-Ohio-River-Crossing-Section-3-Industry-Forum-Presentation-April-2023.pdf

This presentation was for the design build contract for the Indiana side. Its mainly a new intersection with current I-69 as well as two long bridges over the flood plain.

(note: due to the persnickety river refusing to stay in their legally defined place over the past two centuries,  :-D  this Indiana part of the road doesn't actually make it all the way to the Ohio River)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ilpt4u on February 19, 2024, 06:08:43 PM
^^^^^^^ I thought I remembered reading the 69 interchange with Veterans Pkwy was redesigned away from a Trumpet to a Freeway Y/Freeway T with Flyovers…and that INDOT pdf confirms
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: edwaleni on February 19, 2024, 11:13:41 PM
Is that $100M somewhat freed up to advance other projects?
If it were me, I would hold that $100M as "contingency." Something tells me that at least two of the bidders may have low-balled their bids to get the job. It reeks of the same stench that the debacle with Section 5 (Bloomington-Martinsville) had, where that bidder low-balled their bid by $80M and the contract was terminated midway through that project because the prime contractor ran out of money to finish the job. I sure hope that doesn't happen here.
Contingency means that it will get eaten up by change orders, just like HB said.  Contingency is built into PS&E.

Illinois (IDOT) has the new Wabash River Bridge for I-64 out for bid currently and its only 60 miles away from the ORX project. So while IDOT has been playing cat and mouse with the issues on this bridge for over 15 years, I don't think its a coincidence they are putting their bids out now at the same time ORX is working on theirs. A significant amount of the pylon design for the Indiana approach to the river will have a high chance of being duplicated for the Wabash River crossing.

Walsh/ORX may feel like they have an inside track on the IDOT effort and can bid low since they will no doubt share resources.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 20, 2024, 09:51:34 AM
(note: due to the persnickety river refusing to stay in their legally defined place over the past two centuries,  :-D  this Indiana part of the road doesn't actually make it all the way to the Ohio River)

Silly Kentucky couldn't be satisfied with a boundary in the middle of the river; they wanted that far bank for some reason.  Daniel Boone must have liked islands. :P
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Alex on February 20, 2024, 02:26:52 PM
Google Maps has been updated to show construction of future Interstate 69 in Kentucky north of US 41: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8478746,-87.5618769,1475m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. It's not much, but it's a start.

Visible construction as of yesterday (02-19-24):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/i-069-henderson-ky-02-19-24.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/i-069-henderson-ky-02-19-24.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2024, 09:43:23 AM
Google Maps has been updated to show construction of future Interstate 69 in Kentucky north of US 41: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8478746,-87.5618769,1475m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. It's not much, but it's a start.

Visible construction as of yesterday (02-19-24):

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/i-069-henderson-ky-02-19-24.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/i-069-henderson-ky-02-19-24.jpg)
What site is this imagery from?
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: KelleyCook on February 22, 2024, 12:05:24 PM
What site is this imagery from?

I, too, saw that yesterday and needed to go find it.

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu

Create an account, browse to your hearts content.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2024, 01:11:10 PM
What site is this imagery from?

I, too, saw that yesterday and needed to go find it.

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu

Create an account, browse to your hearts content.
Do note though, I don’t believe you can zoom further in than that picture shows, without it getting blurrier.

It is great though for new highway construction projects like this, however.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: ITB on February 22, 2024, 02:20:37 PM
The ORX Project website has a great videos and photos page (https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/videos-and-photos/) that is kept fairly up to date. The photos are uncaptioned, but for those familiar with the area, it  shouldn't be difficult to figure out what's happening where.

Here's a couple of recent videos which include snippets of drone footage:

Starting the I-69 Connection


A Year of Progress


Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: wriddle082 on February 22, 2024, 02:59:06 PM
(note: due to the persnickety river refusing to stay in their legally defined place over the past two centuries,  :-D  this Indiana part of the road doesn't actually make it all the way to the Ohio River)

Silly Kentucky couldn't be satisfied with a boundary in the middle of the river; they wanted that far bank for some reason.  Daniel Boone must have liked islands. :P

The establishment of that border goes back to when Kentucky was still part of Virginia.  Same deal with West Virginia’s border with Ohio.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2024, 07:56:05 PM
(note: due to the persnickety river refusing to stay in their legally defined place over the past two centuries,  :-D  this Indiana part of the road doesn't actually make it all the way to the Ohio River)

Silly Kentucky couldn't be satisfied with a boundary in the middle of the river; they wanted that far bank for some reason.  Daniel Boone must have liked islands. :P
That situation is not unique to the Ohio River and the border between states that were formerly part of Virginia and their adjacent neighbors. The border between Vermont and New Hampshire has a similar situation, where the border between the two states lies on the right (west) bank of the Connecticut River, rather than in the middle of the main river channel.

The establishment of that border goes back to when Kentucky was still part of Virginia.  Same deal with West Virginia’s border with Ohio.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Moose on February 26, 2024, 12:02:54 AM
(note: due to the persnickety river refusing to stay in their legally defined place over the past two centuries,  :-D  this Indiana part of the road doesn't actually make it all the way to the Ohio River)

Silly Kentucky couldn't be satisfied with a boundary in the middle of the river; they wanted that far bank for some reason.  Daniel Boone must have liked islands. :P
That situation is not unique to the Ohio River and the border between states that were formerly part of Virginia and their adjacent neighbors. The border between Vermont and New Hampshire has a similar situation, where the border between the two states lies on the right (west) bank of the Connecticut River, rather than in the middle of the main river channel.

The establishment of that border goes back to when Kentucky was still part of Virginia.  Same deal with West Virginia’s border with Ohio.

Yep, and is resulted in Green River Island (which is no longer an Island) having a Horse Track and betting..  well well before Indiana would approve any such thing.

And its the only place I know of that Indiana and Kentucky having a road crossible (non bridge) land border. 41 may have a bridge there, but there are a couple gravel roads to the east where you can cross Indiana to Kentucky without crossing a bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 27, 2024, 02:34:48 PM
Some of the I-69 construction around Henderson is now (just barely) visible on Google maps...

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8516721,-87.5605887,2706m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu

You can see the outline of the future US 41 interchange.

Title: Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Post by: Sapphuby on March 01, 2024, 09:51:42 AM
If you use Copernicus browser you can see much more construction going on than what Google Maps shows. It's quite helpful.