*SIU 3 (I-465 Indianapolis to I-64 Evansville): 26 miles (I-465 Indianapolis to SR 39 Martinsville) (http://www.i69indyevn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Report_PurposeNeed_Sec6.pdf), 21.1 miles (SR 39 Martinsville to SR 37 Bloomington) (http://www.i69indyevn.org/wp-content/uploads/Sec5_FEIS/S5_ROD.pdf), 26.7 miles (SR 37 Bloomington to US 231 Crane) (http://www.i69indyevn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Rod_Sec4_Main.pdf), 66.3 miles (US 231 Crane to I-64 Evansville per Goog): total 140 miles
*SIU 4 (I-64 Evansville to Pennyrile Parkway south of KY 425 (near the curve in US 41) Henderson): 31.5 miles (http://web.archive.org/web/20050326023655/http://www.i69in-ky.com/files/PAMP.pdf)
*SIU 5 (Henderson to I-24 Eddyville): 78.4 miles (per Goog)
*SIU 6 (I-24 Eddyville to US 45E South Fulton): 68.6 miles (per Goog)
*SIU 7 (US 45E South Fulton to US 412 Dyersburg): 47 miles (http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/segment7/FEISI6%20US412US51%20nterchangeUS.pdf)
*SIU 8 (US 412 Dyersburg to SR 385 Millington): 65 miles (http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/segment8/description.htm)
*SIU 9 (SR 385 Millington to I-55/MS 304): 44 miles (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Contract%20Administration/DesignBuild/MDOT%20Project%20NoDBSTP002903009%20%20102556304000%20Propos/I-69%20FINAL%20EIS%20DOCUMENT%206-28-06.pdf)
*SIU 10 (along MS 304): 13.2 miles (per Goog)
*SIU 11 (county line near MS 304 to MS 1): 120 miles (http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/District%201%20and%202/Archived%20Projects/Project%20Studies/I-69%20Section%2011%20-%20Robinsonville%20To%20Benoit/Record%20of%20Decision.pdf)
*SIU 12 (MS 1 to US 65 McGehee): 23 miles (http://www.arkansashighways.com/forums/GRB_ROD.pdf)
*SIU 13 (US 65 McGehee to US 82 El Dorado): 103 miles (http://web.archive.org/web/20060116142446/http://i-69.dina.org/meetings/paa-oct04.pdf)
*SIU 14 (US 82 El Dorado to I-20 Haughton): 63.17 miles (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20FEIS%208-2011.pdf)
*SIU 15 (I-20 Haughton to US 171 Stonewall): 35 miles (http://www.i69dotd.com/FEIS/Summary.pdf)
*SIU 16 (US 171 Stonewall to US 59 Nacogdoches): couldn't find info on this; via existing roads is 71.6 miles to the northwest corner of the Nacogdoches beltway
In summary:
*I-465 to WK Parkway: 212 miles
*WK Parkway to I-155: 154 miles
*I-155 to downtown Memphis: 89 miles
*I-55 to I-20 (17 miles from Shreveport): 322 miles
With these distances, we can compare I-69 to existing routes.
First, north of the WK Parkway. Obviously I-69 is the most direct from Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, but even from Toledo and Detroit US 24 to I-69 is about the same distance, though probably a bit faster depending on traffic.
Memphis to Indy: I-69 saves only six miles over 55-57-70, and adds seven miles if going to Toledo/Detroit.
Shreveport to Memphis is where I-69 really starts to suck. 49-30-40 is 12 miles shorter than proposed I-69. And if you're going beyond Memphis on the I-69 corridor, you can bypass Memphis and still save 9 miles by going 67-412. Approximately the same savings are had if starting at Nacogdoches rather than Shreveport.
In other words, I-69 is two regional projects, south of Texarkana-Shreveport and north of Memphis, linked by an utterly bullshit segment through Arkansas.
Which Arkansas politician was responsible for it route through that state?
Probably a fan of the razorbacks.
Quote from: dfwmapper on November 15, 2014, 03:31:00 AM
Probably a fan of the razorbacks.
Wrong Interstate–Fayetteville's on I-49.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2014, 05:00:11 AM
Wrong Interstate–Fayetteville's on I-49.
Little r, not big R. A lover of all things porcine.
Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system. Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful. But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it. (I-47 anyone?!)
Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere. I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it. Problem solved. Money saved.
Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling. You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.
Finally, Memphis-Indy. Okay, but it should've been I-61. I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.
I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing. Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way. It's a joke. A bad idea from another era. It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.
It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada. It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69. There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it. The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway. So I declare open season.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 16, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
Finally, Memphis-Indy. Okay, but it should've been I-61. I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.
(holy crap fictional) Given what's being built, it seems like it would make the most sense to take I-69 to I-24 near Hopkinsville and assign one even number to Hayti-Dyersburg-Union City-Mayfield-Elizabethtown-Versailles. Evansville-Nashville isn't a major corridor by itself, and I-65 is shorter between Indy and Nashville, but it's already all built or under construction except SR 37 and the Ohio River crossing.
Even the older part of I-69 is indirect. I wonder how much Indy-Toronto traffic will switch to the Toledo route (40 miles shorter) when the new bridge at Detroit is built, if most traffic doesn't already go that way. I-69 is two separate corridors there: a Detroit bypass for I-94 (only 7 miles longer) and the Indy-Lansing part of a north-south corridor to Soo.
PS: 73/74 is worse.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 16, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada. It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
Also, whoever said it was our job to connect those 2 countries anyway? :hmmm: Did Canada and Mexico ever help pay for these roads to connect them? I didn't think so. (no, Mexico contributing laborers doesn't count :bigass: )
I-69 is just as useless as I-74 is between Cincinnati and Myrtle Beach is. I am glad that this is brought out finally as I have always stated it is a total waste.
I-69 E and I-69 C are too close to each other and I-69C does not even make it to Mexico either as it stops short of the Rio Grande at I-2 (another wasted number). Plus I-69E is taking over US 77, a 75 mph expressway with no slowdowns as it mostly runs through Kenedy County which has no services, no towns, and when upgraded to interstate standards will still take the same amount of time to surpass. Why even waste the money to upgrade that one.
As the OP suggests, there are shorter routes between the dots along the way. Even NE 2 years ago stated why not route I-69 along I-30 and then north of I-40 along the existing US 67 and now mentions US 412 in addition to it. It routing through Arkansas is total nonsense! Thank God that I-49 is drawing attention away from it at the moment, which is why it is not being constructed yet!
I agree that it is all different corridors and that you will not find that much traffic going to use the whole length of it when completed. Heck, I wonder if anyone even completes the journey from Indy to Port Huron as NE 2 implies?
This and I-74's routing in NC (a separate story) are a bunch of different corridors all linked together.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2014, 03:04:36 PM
I-69 E and I-69 C are too close to each other and I-69C does not even make it to Mexico either as it stops short of the Rio Grande at I-2 (another wasted number). Plus I-69E is taking over US 77, a 75 mph expressway with no slowdowns as it mostly runs through Kenedy County which has no services, no towns, and when upgraded to interstate standards will still take the same amount of time to surpass. Why even waste the money to upgrade that one.
Unfortunately you can't just put all the traffic on 69C or 69E (compare distances for San Antonio-McAllen and Houston-Brownsville). But yes, there's no reason to get rid of ranch driveways. Or is FHWA going to get on TXDOT's ass about the ones on I-10 and I-40?
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2014, 06:09:13 PM
*SIU 14 (US 82 El Dorado to I-20 Haughton): 80 miles (http://web.archive.org/web/20060628145529/http://i69arkla.com/documents/NOI.pdf) (fuck you URS Corporation for letting the domain expire before the FEIS with perhaps a more precise figure could be archived)
LaDOTD has an I-69 SIU 14 page (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Pages/default.aspx?RootFolder=%2FInside_LaDOTD%2FDivisions%2FEngineering%2FEnvironmental%2FDocuments%2FI-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015%2FI-69%20SIU%2014&FolderCTID=0x012000C055341479DCD84E95C80E77E7755A9A&View=%7B993143B3-FC7F-4567-86C2-C8EE52788C8D%7D) with links to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20FEIS%208-2011.pdf) and the signed Record of Decision (http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Documents/I-69%20SIUs%2014%20and%2015/I-69%20SIU%2014/I-69%20SIU%2014%20Signed%20ROD%20%2004-27-2012.pdf).
Oh cool. I just made archive.org save those. Looks like the final distance is 63.17 miles - I wonder how they got 80 originally.
If anyone cares, here's a future I-69 exit list from US 171 to South Fulton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NE2/I-69
Quote from: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 08:10:24 PM
IIRC only Mississippi calls it the "Charles W. Dean Bridge"; AHTD still calls it the "Great River Bridge". I doubt anyone here in Arkansas cares a flying rat's behind about Dean; IMO, if we ever name it it's more likely to be for Robert S. Moore, Jr., a highway commissioner from nearby Arkansas City, much like the Bobby Hopper Tunnel. (Maybe it'll be the Dean-Moore or Moore-Dean Bridge, like the Hoover Dam Bypass' O'Callaghan-Tillman Bridge which also crosses a state line and was hyphenated to honor each state's wishes.)
(above quote from I-69 in AR (and Pine Bluff I-69 Connector/AR 530) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.msg297237#msg297237) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on July 24, 2014, 04:00:23 PM
In a July 23, 2014 presentation to the Arkansas State Highway Commission (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2014/072314_Commission%20Meeting%20Powerpoint.pdf), AHTD Director Scott Bennett included a slide about the Great River Bridge (page 56/82 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQ25g5p8.png&hash=1ddc6c7f1ad38e212f3cab6eb8b64560510f7c44)
(above quote from I-69 Mississippi River Bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6153.msg314876#msg314876) thread)
Quote from: NE2 on December 13, 2014, 01:26:08 PM
If anyone cares, here's a future I-69 exit list from US 171 to South Fulton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NE2/I-69
A snip from the list:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbT0eYrX.jpg&hash=7219ac83c2c22461d44cf76cc83f75da584128d2)
After a brief look, I found what appears to be a 2003 proposed bill from the Arkansas House which urges AHTD to designate the Great River Bridge as the Charles W. Dean bridge:
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2003/R/Bills/HCR1011.pdf
However, judging by RBBrittain's post and AHTD's July, 2014 slide, it appears that either the bill was never passed or the bill was passed and AHTD simply ignored the urging. Also, the cited Wikipedia article only mentions the 1999 Mississippi legislation. Maybe it should be "Great River/ Charles W. Dean Bridge".
Also, this article (http://www.reporter-times.com/slow-ride-to-mexico-states-face-obstacles-in-effort-to/article_96738df2-e99f-5a10-b45a-13288aac9755.html) provides a six-state I-69 status report.
Name it after Bill Clinton.
Something on I-69 should carry his name.
:awesomeface: :-D
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 30, 2014, 01:09:51 PM
Name it after Bill Clinton.
Something on I-69 should carry his name.
:awesomeface: :-D
:clap: :-D
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 16, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system. Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful. But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it. (I-47 anyone?!)
Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere. I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it. Problem solved. Money saved.
Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling. You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.
Finally, Memphis-Indy. Okay, but it should've been I-61. I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.
I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing. Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way. It's a joke. A bad idea from another era. It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.
It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada. It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69. There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it. The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway. So I declare open season.
US 62's routing is stupid. And yes all these new routes are gimmicks created by politicians and lobbyists. We didn't need 69 for its connection from Mexico to Canada, how many interstates already do that? But the buzzwords "connects Canada to Mexico" and "Jobs" and "increase in trade" will get anything built now. and to the point about route numbers not following rules anymore, wasn't there an I-3 planned somewhere around Northern Georgia?
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 30, 2014, 04:04:59 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 16, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system. Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful. But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it. (I-47 anyone?!)
Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere. I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it. Problem solved. Money saved.
Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling. You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.
Finally, Memphis-Indy. Okay, but it should've been I-61. I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.
I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing. Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way. It's a joke. A bad idea from another era. It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.
It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada. It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69. There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it. The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway. So I declare open season.
US 62's routing is stupid. And yes all these new routes are gimmicks created by politicians and lobbyists. We didn't need 69 for its connection from Mexico to Canada, how many interstates already do that? But the buzzwords "connects Canada to Mexico" and "Jobs" and "increase in trade" will get anything built now. and to the point about route numbers not following rules anymore, wasn't there an I-3 planned somewhere around Northern Georgia?
I-3 was supposed to connect Knoxville with Savannah. Thankfully, it hasn't received much traction.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 30, 2014, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 30, 2014, 04:04:59 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 16, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system. Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful. But this being I-69, we're not even going to get one number over this part of it. (I-47 anyone?!)
Continuing on to Brownsville is okay, but is not a huge priority.
69C is a complete waste.
Almost as much as sending 69 toward Laredo through the middle of nowhere. I've said this before, but finish that outer loop in San Antonio and slap an interstate shield on it. Problem solved. Money saved.
Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling. You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money.
Finally, Memphis-Indy. Okay, but it should've been I-61. I will forever blame Evansville for the overall boondoggle that is I-69.
I was driving on US 62 in New Mexico yesterday and chuckled at the absurdity of its routing. Wandering its way from Buffalo to El Paso, concurrent with other US highways most of the way. It's a joke. A bad idea from another era. It has been weird to watch almost the same kind of thing happen before my eyes with I-69.
It has to be the same dumb logic of "Oh, well we need it to connect Mexico and Canada. It doesn't matter at what point on either border, it just has to go there."
But whatever, I've made peace with the numbering CF that is I-69. There are no more rules when it comes to numbering so fuck it. The general alignments are being dictated by lobbyists anyway. So I declare open season.
US 62's routing is stupid. And yes all these new routes are gimmicks created by politicians and lobbyists. We didn't need 69 for its connection from Mexico to Canada, how many interstates already do that? But the buzzwords "connects Canada to Mexico" and "Jobs" and "increase in trade" will get anything built now. and to the point about route numbers not following rules anymore, wasn't there an I-3 planned somewhere around Northern Georgia?
I-3 was supposed to connect Knoxville with Savannah. Thankfully, it hasn't received much traction.
Yes, there was a proposed Interstate 3. The freeway connection from Savannah to Augusta to Knoxville (I think the proposed route may have served Greenville as well) isnt half bad of an idea, but that numbering really is crazy.
Also, for my own words on future I-69, I think I-69 through all of Texas is
very important (except for the suffixes near Brownsville; either have one freeway down there or make one of them a 3di, simple as that), and up to Shreveport. Shreveport to Evansville I can't say is needed at all. Then, as for Evansville to Indianapolis, I think that will be very useful.
But all of the I-69 extension may very well eventually be built, and if so we'll have to deal with it. But if so, that planned Great River Bridge is sure to be pretty cool! ;)
Ignoring the numbering, I-3 is just a stupid proposal. If there's a real need to connect Augusta to Knoxville, a corridor incorporating I-26 and I-40 via Asheville, with new construction only south of Clinton, would likely be just as short, and would be much cheaper and much less damaging to the Smokies.
There are too many routes now that I think using longer 3di's wouldn't be a bad idea, especially for 2di's that are around 100 miles or so. This really wouldn't be an option for the I-3 Corridor, as it would be about 375 miles I'd imagine, but using I-26 and I-95 to get from Knoxville to Savannah is only another fifty miles. Is there really that much need for this corridor?
This August 20 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/call%20to%20action%208.20.15.html) describes sections of the Senate's proposed six-year bill that could provide funding for I-69:
Quote
The Senate has approved a version of a six-year bill but there is no agreement in Washington on how to fund the full multi-year program.
The Senate bill does include important amendments sought by the Alliance for I-69 Texas. These include designation of State Highway 44 between Corpus Christi and Freer as part of future I-69, the creation of a new freight program totaling over $1 billion a year, and the revival of the Projects of Regional and National Significance and the Assistance for Major Projects Program (AMP) which is anticipated to provide new funds for critical, high-cost projects.
I had been aware of the new freight program, but I had missed the revival of the Projects of Regional and National Significance and the Assistance for Major Projects Program. The I-69 Ohio River bridge and I-69 SIU 7 in Tennessee from the Kentucky state line to I-155 come immediately to mind for me, as well as providing Missouri with some help to finish the I-49 Bella Vista Bypass. That said, it all depends on how much money would be available for such projects.
edit
Quote from: thefro on June 30, 2015, 08:28:24 AM
I skimmed the text of the bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1647/text)and there's $2 billion dollars set aside in 2016, going up to $2.5 billion in 2021 for projects to upgrade the National Freight Network. The definition of what's eligible for funding seems pretty broad though.
There's also a pool of money for "assistance for major projects (that would cost over $350 million)" that starts at $300 million and ends at $450 million in 2021. The min. federal grant is $50 million.
(above quote from I-69 in MS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2075627#msg2075627) thread)
I had also forgotten about the above post by thefro.
Ah yes, the Projects of Regional and National Significance (PORNs).
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2014, 06:09:13 PM
First, north of the WK Parkway. Obviously I-69 is the most direct from Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, but even from Toledo and Detroit US 24 to I-69 is about the same distance, though probably a bit faster depending on traffic.
I-69 to US 24 is definitely easier than I-69 to I-94 as I-94 is busy and under-engineered.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2014, 06:09:13 PM
Memphis to Indy: I-69 saves only six miles over 55-57-70, and adds seven miles if going to Toledo/Detroit.
Shreveport to Memphis is where I-69 really starts to suck. 49-30-40 is 12 miles shorter than proposed I-69. And if you're going beyond Memphis on the I-69 corridor, you can bypass Memphis and still save 9 miles by going 67-412. Approximately the same savings are had if starting at Nacogdoches rather than Shreveport.
In other words, I-69 is two regional projects, south of Texarkana-Shreveport and north of Memphis, linked by an utterly bullshit segment through Arkansas.
It definitely should be two unrelated projects, and the middle part would be a waste. The original system used to favor long routes, and I-69 as planned seems to be a throwback to the the original idea for the I-x5 routes. The Canada-Mexico routing, in this case, seems contrived.
On the opposite end, Wisconsin gets short north-south Interstates that really should be extensions of longer routes.
As for the comparison of the number of miles, I bet I-69 out of Indy will be faster and a much more relaxing drive than I-55, I-65, and I-70 even if it is a few more miles.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2014, 03:04:36 PM
I agree that it is all different corridors and that you will not find that much traffic going to use the whole length of it when completed. Heck, I wonder if anyone even completes the journey from Indy to Port Huron as NE 2 implies?
I am not sure how much traffic really travels an entire Interstate corridor anywhere. I bet a very small percentage, and I-69 is not really unique. If you were travelling from Port Huron to Billings, would you really take I-94 all the way there? If you were going from Chicago to Memphis, would you take I-55 all the way? I think you could find many examples like that. I-69 simply provides an alternate route that serves different cities.
That said, I think I-69 from Lansing to Port Huron would now be better as an even east-west route. When I-69 was extended to Flint and Port Huron in the 1970s, it probably made sense as Indiana (Anderson, in particular) and Flint (and Lansing to a lesser extent) had a high concentration of GM facilities, and back then GM was king with almost 50% of the automotive market share. So I would guess there was a lot of GM traffic on I-69.
To extend that to 2015, a lot of GM parts are now made in the maquiladoras in Matamoras, Reynosa, Laredo, and Juarez so the Texas-Michigan routing would serve a similar function as the Indy to Flint route.
I can't believe how many roads we are building / going to build that go to Mexico period. The US Government issues travel warnings telling everyone not to go to Mexico because it's a war zone (which is mostly not true) but then we spend billions of dollars to build roads that lead there. I-69 is a great example of this. All 3 spurs (E, C, and W) will lead into the Mexican state of Tamaulipas which is #1 on the state departments avoid list. The most laughable part is that 69E and 69C both lead into Mexican Highway 101 (which is famous for cartels) which is only a 2 lane highway.
Quote from: US 41 on September 06, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
I can't believe how many roads we are building / going to build that go to Mexico period. The US Government issues travel warnings telling everyone not to go to Mexico because it's a war zone (which is mostly not true) but then we spend billions of dollars to build roads that lead there. I-69 is a great example of this. All 3 spurs (E, C, and W) will lead into the Mexican state of Tamaulipas which is #1 on the state departments avoid list. The most laughable part is that 69E and 69C both lead into Mexican Highway 101 (which is famous for cartels) which is only a 2 lane highway.
The whole Mexico trade route is just some bullshit they made up just to get federal funding. This road never would have been built otherwise.
Anyone who's ever seen the volume of truck traffic crossing from Mexico into Laredo or Brownsville or McAllen would dispute this. While there are certainly safety issues for individuals who end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, a lot of the stuff that ends up in American stores comes overland by truck from Mexican ports up through the Rio Grande crossings, over routes like Mex 85D and 40D. Not to mention all the stuff that's actually made in Mexico.
Besides which, both I-69C and I-69E serve over a million Americans on the US side of the border alone; somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million people live in the Lower RGV and nearly a million more live in Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.
I guess you could say that 69C turns into 40D once in Mexico. Laredo, Reynosa, and Monterrey are the three biggest and most industrialized cities in northeastern Mexico. All three are under travel warnings, but in reality I wouldn't hesitate to go to any of these cities. There are good and bad parts of any city. Apparently many companies that are investing their money into northeastern Mexico agree.
BTW Here is the travel warning for Tamaulipas in Mexico.
QuoteTamaulipas: Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, and Tampico are major cities in Tamaulipas. Defer all non-essential travel to the state of Tamaulipas. Throughout the state violent crime, including homicide, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, extortion, and sexual assault, pose significant safety risks. State and municipal law enforcement capacity is limited to nonexistent in many parts of Tamaulipas. Violent conflicts between rival criminal elements and/or the Mexican military can occur in all parts of the region and at all times of the day. Violent criminal activity occurs more frequently along the northern border. While no highway routes through Tamaulipas are considered safe, the highways between Matamoros-Ciudad Victoria, Reynosa-Ciudad Victoria, Ciudad Victoria-Tampico, Monterrey-Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros-Reynosa, and Monterrey-Reynosa, are more prone to criminal activity. Organized criminal groups sometimes target public and private passenger buses traveling through Tamaulipas. These groups sometimes take all passengers hostage and demand ransom payments. In Tamaulipas, U.S. government employees are subject to movement restrictions and a curfew between midnight and 6 a.m. Matamoros, Reynosa, Nuevo Laredo, and Ciudad Victoria have experienced numerous gun battles and attacks with explosive devices in the past year. The number of reported kidnappings in Tamaulipas is among the highest in Mexico, and the number of U.S. citizens reported to the consulates in Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo as being kidnapped, abducted, or disappearing involuntarily in 2014 has also increased.
Quote from: US 41 on September 08, 2015, 11:13:21 PM
I guess you could say that 69C turns into 40D once in Mexico.
I-69C ends at I-2, and unless something isn't showing on Google Maps, MX 40D ends 62 km away from there (as the crow flies).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 30, 2014, 01:09:51 PM
Name it after Bill Clinton.
Something on I-69 should carry his name.
:awesomeface: :-D
You win the internet today :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: vdeane on September 09, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 08, 2015, 11:13:21 PM
I guess you could say that 69C turns into 40D once in Mexico.
I-69C ends at I-2, and unless something isn't showing on Google Maps, MX 40D ends 62 km away from there (as the crow flies).
You noticed that one too. I thought it was me only, but considering that the whole purpose of the I-69 thing is to connect directly to Mexico, then all three should really. Only 2 out of 3 do, while you must use US 281 and that short Texas Spur that goes south of US 281 where it turns East to Brownsville, or its own alter ego technical US 281 SPUR, but signed as another mainline US 281.
Unless that last at-grade on US 77 is removed, I-69E won't hit Mexico either, though it will get much closer. I believe I-69W ends at a crossing that is trucks-only (also the only freeway-freeway crossing on the entire border).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 16, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
Houston-Texarkana is the only really needed part of I-69 that fills in a major missing link in the interstate system. Connecting our fifth largest city to the Midwest in a way that is actually helpful ...
Memphis to Shreveport is completely baffling. You can tell every little burg anywhere near the general corridor wanted in on some of that sweet, sweet 69 money ...
Finally, Memphis-Indy. Okay ...
Quote from: lordsutch on September 08, 2015, 12:21:36 AM
Anyone who's ever seen the volume of truck traffic crossing from Mexico into Laredo or Brownsville or McAllen ... a lot of the stuff that ends up in American stores comes overland by truck from Mexican ports up through the Rio Grande crossings, over routes like Mex 85D and 40D. Not to mention all the stuff that's actually made in Mexico.
Besides which, both I-69C and I-69E serve over a million Americans on the US side of the border alone; somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million people live in the Lower RGV and nearly a million more live in Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.
AHTD has posted the slide presentation made by Director Scott Bennett at the December 7, 2015 Interstate 69 Coalition Meeting (http://www.arkansashighways.com/PowerPoints/2015/120715_SEB_I-69.pdf). One of the slides pertains to the history of I-69 (p. 2/15 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbmKzNnK.png&hash=26e4388338f3796019640921a1e8e8c1588a6cac)
Looking at the slide, I am struck by how much of the progress on the I-69 Corridor has been made on the original, disconnected HPCs 18 and 20, as well as later additions to the I-69 corridor in Texas. Similarly, progress on the later addition of the (arguably porkified) Memphis to Houston segment has been minimal, at best. Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16? Time will (slowly) tell ..........
Quote from: Grzrd on December 16, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16? Time will (slowly) tell ..........
I don't see any reason to believe that I-69 will ever be a great priority for Louisiana. We're slowly but surely improving US 90 between Lafayette and metro New Orleans. Baton Rouge needs a loop. Even if some magic resolved both of these today, we'd probably focus on US 165 which connects three of our major cities.
Maybe we'll connect Shreveport to Houston via I-69. But there's practically no benefit for us in the northern part.
Quote from: jbnv on November 29, 2016, 02:52:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 16, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16? Time will (slowly) tell ..........
I don't see any reason to believe that I-69 will ever be a great priority for Louisiana. We're slowly but surely improving US 90 between Lafayette and metro New Orleans. Baton Rouge needs a loop. Even if some magic resolved both of these today, we'd probably focus on US 165 which connects three of our major cities.
Maybe we'll connect Shreveport to Houston via I-69. But there's practically no benefit for us in the northern part.
The portion of I-69/HPC #18 from the I-369 divergence in Texas to the Memphis area is, plain & simple, aimed at promoting development in both south/southeast Arkansas and the upper Mississippi Delta region in MS. The fact that it skirts Shreveport is almost incidental (with the desired route, there weren't a lot of other places for it to go!); the only palpable benefit to LA is as a southeast bypass of that metro area. But that seemed to be, for better or worse, the nature of a lot of the original batch of high priority corridors (HPC 5/I-73/74 is another example) was speculative and intended to provide some attention to previously underserved regions. But post-charged-Interstate system additions are as much political entities -- and quite possibly more so -- than driven by planning, engineering, and in-depth studies and/or cost-benefit analyses. However, some (e.g. I-49, I-22) fill actual system voids -- so it seems that in order to get the facilities that are really needed, it is necessary to tolerate (after taking some deep breaths!) some routes whose need or potential is at best marginal.
I have been looking for the full route of Interstate 69 lately, does it go past the Mississippi river? As far as i know the route terminates in Western Mississippi.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on December 09, 2016, 12:11:19 PM
I have been looking for the full route of Interstate 69 lately, does it go past the Mississippi river? As far as i know the route terminates in Western Mississippi.
There are a lot of I-69 threads already going on. You will find all the info you need in those.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3245.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1329.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4510.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.0
Here is the "General I-69" thread, which should give you a pretty good idea of the route:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13977.0
Mods, perhaps you could merge this thread into "General I-69".
And, here's a good map of the entire route:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231217#msg231217
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
Quote from: sparker on November 30, 2016, 01:34:52 PM
Quote from: jbnv on November 29, 2016, 02:52:46 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 16, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
Do Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16? Time will (slowly) tell ..........
I don't see any reason to believe that I-69 will ever be a great priority for Louisiana. We're slowly but surely improving US 90 between Lafayette and metro New Orleans. Baton Rouge needs a loop. Even if some magic resolved both of these today, we'd probably focus on US 165 which connects three of our major cities.
Maybe we'll connect Shreveport to Houston via I-69. But there's practically no benefit for us in the northern part.
The portion of I-69/HPC #18 from the I-369 divergence in Texas to the Memphis area is, plain & simple, aimed at promoting development in both south/southeast Arkansas and the upper Mississippi Delta region in MS. The fact that it skirts Shreveport is almost incidental (with the desired route, there weren't a lot of other places for it to go!); the only palpable benefit to LA is as a southeast bypass of that metro area. But that seemed to be, for better or worse, the nature of a lot of the original batch of high priority corridors (HPC 5/I-73/74 is another example) was speculative and intended to provide some attention to previously underserved regions. But post-charged-Interstate system additions are as much political entities -- and quite possibly more so -- than driven by planning, engineering, and in-depth studies and/or cost-benefit analyses. However, some (e.g. I-49, I-22) fill actual system voids -- so it seems that in order to get the facilities that are really needed, it is necessary to tolerate (after taking some deep breaths!) some routes whose need or potential is at best marginal.
The problem is, though, that the Tenaha/Shreveport/Monticello/Clarksburg/Tunica portion of proposed I-69 is mostly there as filler to connect the more important Texas and Memphis/Troy/Evansville/Indy links together to create a "national corridor" feasible enough for mass public support. The only actual benefits it gives Shreveport are that it provides a means to access the Port of Shreveport/Bossier and it completes the Inner Loop freeway to east of the Red River.
And while the proposed I-69 routing through southern Arkansas probably would improve economic development for cities like El Dorado, Monticello, and possibly Clarksburg, as well as add a needed multimodal bridge across the Mississippi River, I still say that extending I-530/AR 530 south to Monroe, then upgrading US 165 through Alexandria down to I-10 would provide more bang for the buck. Four-laning US 82 and US 278 with freeway bypasses of major cities would help as well.
Either way, there are higher priorities in LA than I-69 (namely I-49 South, I-49 Shreveport ICC and the BTR clusterwack), and AR (BVB and I-49), plus, not nearly enough money.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 10, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.
To add on, once I-69 is completed to I-465, all of the I-465/I-74 signs from Exit 4 to Exit 49 will come down, and be replaced with I-465/I-74/
I-69 signs. North of exit 49, I-465/I-69. This will take a while.
Quote from: GrzrdDo Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana really have the will/desire to build SIUs 11-16?
A little late in replying, but MDOT does not intend to build additional segments of their part of I-69 without additional/dedicated Federal funding.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on December 14, 2016, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 10, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.
To add on, once I-69 is completed to I-465, all of the I-465/I-74 signs from Exit 4 to Exit 49 will come down, and be replaced with I-465/I-74/I-69 signs. North of exit 49, I-465/I-69. This will take a while.
That will be a cluster of signage. I noticed at the I-465/65 south interchange there are dedicated portions of each sign that designate the interstate and its control city. Those signs would have to be huge in order to add I-69 and its control cities.
Quote from: codyg1985 on December 16, 2016, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on December 14, 2016, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 10, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.
To add on, once I-69 is completed to I-465, all of the I-465/I-74 signs from Exit 4 to Exit 49 will come down, and be replaced with I-465/I-74/I-69 signs. North of exit 49, I-465/I-69. This will take a while.
That will be a cluster of signage. I noticed at the I-465/65 south interchange there are dedicated portions of each sign that designate the interstate and its control city. Those signs would have to be huge in order to add I-69 and its control cities.
they'll probably put the 69 next to the 465 shield on those signs, they need to sign 465 like they do 270 in Columbus, Ohio, with the control cities on it to encourage through traffic to bypass the city.
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 10, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.
The entire Ohio River section is in Kentucky and not in Indiana. The southern end in Indiana is complete. It is up to Kentucky now to build. Henderson should be smart to keep I-69 as is and be the Breezewood of I-69.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 16, 2016, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Rick Powell on December 10, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 09, 2016, 11:40:15 PM
As of now I-69 south of Indianapolis is a bunch of disjointed sections reminiscent of 1960's and 1970's Interstate construction. All that is needed are TO I-69 signs to help connect to each disjointed section. :D
I just drove the full length of I-69 today from Evansville to Bloomington. There's an I-69 Ends sign at the IN 37 interchange, but it appears as if the existing IN 37 north of that interchange is being improved to freeway standards; at least as far as the IN 45/IN 46 exit, which is where I got off.
That's correct, they are upgrading IN 37 to interstate standards all the way from the current I-69 junction to the south end of Martinsville, and it is expected to be done and marked I-69 by end of next year. The section between Martinsville and I-465 is currently under study and will be built and marked I-69, probably by early 2020's. That will leave only the Ohio River crossing left to be done to close the gap in IN.
The entire Ohio River section is in Kentucky and not in Indiana. The southern end in Indiana is complete. It is up to Kentucky now to build. Henderson should be smart to keep I-69 as is and be the Breezewood of I-69.
that is completely true, but Indiana is still going to pay for some of it. I believe Indiana is even doing the environmental for the bridge right now too.
Waste of IN taxpayer money.
Indiana has some sort of agreement with Kentucky on bridges over the Ohio River. They also were active with the new bridge near Rockport IN/Owensboro KY as well as Louisville, KY.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 16, 2016, 06:17:31 PM
Waste of IN taxpayer money.
I agree, I wish the state line was the middle of the ohio river, but that goes back to to days of the NW Territory. but it does benefit Indiana if the bridge is built, so i see why IN wants to pay for some of it, I don't think it should be 50/50 though.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 16, 2016, 06:17:31 PM
Waste of IN taxpayer money.
Indiana would have to build approaches on its side anyway, even though the current river course is wholly in Kentucky. It's not like I-164 is already built up to the state line.
Unless the plan has changed, the new bridge will not be wholly in Kentucky. While the US 41 bridges are, the I-69 bridge was planned to be built to the east (bypassing Henderson), where the state line is the edge of the river. And, of course, the approaches in Indiana need to be built, unless you want the bridge to look like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0355635,124.3719116,2112m/data=!3m1!1e3
On US 41, the bridges are entirely in Kentucky and the state line is a drainage ditch north of the river because the state line is the low-water mark as it existed in 1792 and the river's course has changed since then. (I don't recall ever seeing when or how the river changed course in the 225-or-so years since Kentucky became a state). But where the I-69 bridges will be built, the river is the state line.
Even though the river is, for the most part, entirely in Kentucky, there are construction and maintenance agreements with neighboring states. For instance, Ohio built the new Ironton-Russell bridge and the US Grant bridge that carries US 23. Kentucky built the new I-65 northbound bridge and Indiana built the new I-265 bridge. Indiana is also doing a major painting job on the Lincoln Trail Bridge between Cannelton and Hawesville.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 16, 2016, 06:17:31 PM
Waste of IN taxpayer money.
I would be real interested in how you come to this conclusion?
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 18, 2016, 10:47:53 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 16, 2016, 06:17:31 PM
Waste of IN taxpayer money.
I would be real interested in how you come to this conclusion?
Probably because he posts that about literally everything.
I like to think he takes time off of work to go to the Tennessee state capitol, chasing down minor office functionaries and bleating at them whenever they use too many post-its.
I have spent some time at the capitol. TN does stream all of the legislative committees as well as myriad of other meetings and committees. I am also an elected official and save tax payer money as much as possible.
So tell me why you seem so obsessed with Henderson not completing I-69? Can you seriously think the city is better off with a bottleneck to appease a few fast food joints than a modern highway servicing a metropolitan area of approximately 400,000 people?
i think 69 is only really necessary between indy and memphis
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 20, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
So tell me why you seem so obsessed with Henderson not completing I-69? Can you seriously think the city is better off with a bottleneck to appease a few fast food joints than a modern highway servicing a metropolitan area of approximately 400,000 people?
Henderson could pose this as a unique situation and use this to their advantage. Hey it does work out for Breezewood. They could put this to good spin.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2016, 08:28:53 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 19, 2016, 09:32:20 PM
I am also an elected official
This explains so much.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 20, 2016, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 20, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
So tell me why you seem so obsessed with Henderson not completing I-69? Can you seriously think the city is better off with a bottleneck to appease a few fast food joints than a modern highway servicing a metropolitan area of approximately 400,000 people?
Henderson could pose this as a unique situation and use this to their advantage. Hey it does work out for Breezewood. They could put this to good spin.
Two things: (1) Henderson doesn't have the PTC available to run interference for them; they also don't have the excuse that the original Interstate legislation forbade chargeable money from being spent on connections to a toll road (tolls were removed from Breathitt/I-69 a long time ago, and the corridor certainly isn't in the "chargeable" category). Also -- has anyone in Henderson actually expressed an interest in functioning as an effective "Breezewood"? The city has a population base of about 30K; one would think that they aren't largely dependent upon supplication of roadside services for their fiscal needs! (2) addressed directly to Av.71: If there isn't an issue of security involved in such a disclosure, what
is the actual public office you occupy? Inquiring minds want to know! :hmmm:
I just drove the Henderson corridor a couple of weeks ago. There aren't as many "highway businesses" along the route as I thought there were.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 20, 2016, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 20, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
So tell me why you seem so obsessed with Henderson not completing I-69? Can you seriously think the city is better off with a bottleneck to appease a few fast food joints than a modern highway servicing a metropolitan area of approximately 400,000 people?
Henderson could pose this as a unique situation and use this to their advantage. Hey it does work out for Breezewood. They could put this to good spin.
Really? Breezewood is an unincorporated town in the middle of nowhere with virtually no residents. Henderson County has nearly 50,000 people, connected to the other 300,000 residents of the Evansville-Henderson MSA on the north side of the Ohio with a single bridge crossing. If there is any type of accident, or construction, it becomes very problematic to get to the other side. You do realize that the Evansville-Henderson MSA is the largest on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing?
Henderson has had modest growth over the last 50 years. Warrick County IN and the McCutchanville area north of Evansville has had the largest growth in this region during this period. Henderson currently has significantly lower utility rates and property taxes than the Indiana residents. With adequate access to the other side, Henderson could legitimately become a very attractive place for future growth in this region.
Trust me, this is far more advantageous to the future of Henderson than maintaining a bottleneck along US 41 for the benefit of a few convenience stores and fast food joints.
Do you think Nashville would have been better off if they had never built I-24, instead just kept funneling all of the traffic down Murfreesboro Road?
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 20, 2016, 07:27:49 AM
i think 69 is only really necessary between indy and memphis
Between Indy and Canada is pretty important (and Detroit and Chicago ;))!
I think that Texas' bits are important too. Texarkana - Houston - Corpus Christi - Laredo/Rio Grande Valley links several key urban areas and onward connections (Mexico to the south, I-49 and I-30 to the north). Shreveport (and I-20) is also important enough to justify its direct interstate connection to Houston that I-69 would give.
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 22, 2016, 12:19:34 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 20, 2016, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 20, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
So tell me why you seem so obsessed with Henderson not completing I-69? Can you seriously think the city is better off with a bottleneck to appease a few fast food joints than a modern highway servicing a metropolitan area of approximately 400,000 people?
Henderson could pose this as a unique situation and use this to their advantage. Hey it does work out for Breezewood. They could put this to good spin.
Really? Breezewood is an unincorporated town in the middle of nowhere with virtually no residents. Henderson County has nearly 50,000 people, connected to the other 300,000 residents of the Evansville-Henderson MSA on the north side of the Ohio with a single bridge crossing. If there is any type of accident, or construction, it becomes very problematic to get to the other side. You do realize that the Evansville-Henderson MSA is the largest on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing?
Henderson has had modest growth over the last 50 years. Warrick County IN and the McCutchanville area north of Evansville has had the largest growth in this region during this period. Henderson currently has significantly lower utility rates and property taxes than the Indiana residents. With adequate access to the other side, Henderson could legitimately become a very attractive place for future growth in this region.
Trust me, this is far more advantageous to the future of Henderson than maintaining a bottleneck along US 41 for the benefit of a few convenience stores and fast food joints.
Do you think Nashville would have been better off if they had never built I-24, instead just kept funneling all of the traffic down Murfreesboro Road
Living in the same area, I am as much concerned about the state of the existing bridges. One is about 75 years old, and the other is pushing 50. I expect that neither of them are to current earthquake standards.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on December 22, 2016, 09:03:24 AM
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 22, 2016, 12:19:34 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 20, 2016, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 20, 2016, 12:02:24 AM
So tell me why you seem so obsessed with Henderson not completing I-69? Can you seriously think the city is better off with a bottleneck to appease a few fast food joints than a modern highway servicing a metropolitan area of approximately 400,000 people?
Henderson could pose this as a unique situation and use this to their advantage. Hey it does work out for Breezewood. They could put this to good spin.
Really? Breezewood is an unincorporated town in the middle of nowhere with virtually no residents. Henderson County has nearly 50,000 people, connected to the other 300,000 residents of the Evansville-Henderson MSA on the north side of the Ohio with a single bridge crossing. If there is any type of accident, or construction, it becomes very problematic to get to the other side. You do realize that the Evansville-Henderson MSA is the largest on either the Ohio or Mississippi with a single bridge crossing?
Henderson has had modest growth over the last 50 years. Warrick County IN and the McCutchanville area north of Evansville has had the largest growth in this region during this period. Henderson currently has significantly lower utility rates and property taxes than the Indiana residents. With adequate access to the other side, Henderson could legitimately become a very attractive place for future growth in this region.
Trust me, this is far more advantageous to the future of Henderson than maintaining a bottleneck along US 41 for the benefit of a few convenience stores and fast food joints.
Do you think Nashville would have been better off if they had never built I-24, instead just kept funneling all of the traffic down Murfreesboro Road
Living in the same area, I am as much concerned about the state of the existing bridges. One is about 75 years old, and the other is pushing 50. I expect that neither of them are to current earthquake standards.
1 Definitely needs to be rebuilt, and the other probably should be too, I hear that they may make US 41 2 lanes and use the younger bridge rather than replace the older one, this would only happen after the 69 bridge is built
My recommendation would be to sign US 41 with I-69 on the new bridge, use the older current twin bridge as a pedestrian/bike bridge like they have in Louisville, and turn the other bridge to an extension of US 41A in Kentucky. Yes, I know that Indiana doesn't do "A's", but the KY border is less than a mile from the current I-69 and US 41 interchange, and they could simply sign it ahead "To US 41A". From my understanding, the current US 41A was the original US 41 route. That way they could push more traffic over the tolled bridge and still have a viable alternative for us local folks who are too cheap to pay for the toll bridge, except to clinch it.
I like that idea of 41-A going across the old bridges, however, if Indiana doesn't do Alternates, what becomes of the current 41 through Evansville? Are you suggesting 41 comes back across the current 69-Veterans Parkway and follow the existing road, or bypass Evansville on I-69 to I-64 and back?
Yes, 41-A between Henderson and Madisonville was the original 41 until around 1950. 41-A between Hopkinsville and Nashville was also the original 41 for a short time, with the current 41 route being US 241. Sometime in the 1930's, US 241 was dropped, with the original 41 through Clarksville becoming US 41-W, and the 241 road becoming 41-E. At some point after the war, the directionals were dropped with the Clarksville route becoming 41-A.
I would be curious how the original 41 route, which seems to be more direct, and serves more population through Clarksville, ended up becoming 41-A, with the Springfield route taking the primary route away. I know the times we went to Nashville and south before 24 was completed, we always took the Clarksville route. I think because some of it was 4-laned, and seemed more direct.
Yep, I would keep US 41 going through Evansville proper to the southside of Evansville, since I don't believe the local government will let that be resigned if they have anything to do with it. The only way that Evansville/Vanderburgh officials would consider switching 41 to the I-69 (Old I-164 road) is to keep the road a state highway such as 941, but that really doesn't seem right here.
The extension to Evansville made sense but I agree the Tennessee portion is completely useless. As mentioned earlier it's even longer to go to points north from Memphis than taking interstates that already exist. It also runs 20 miles from I-55. I would end I-69 at I-24 near Hopkinsville KY. The rest should be scrapped.
In the words of another user of this forum, "I-69 is never going to be a continuous Canada to Mexico highway."
Quote from: dvferyance on December 25, 2016, 06:05:38 PM
The extension to Evansville made sense but I agree the Tennessee portion is completely useless. As mentioned earlier it's even longer to go to points north from Memphis than taking interstates that already exist. It also runs 20 miles from I-55. I would end I-69 at I-24 near Hopkinsville KY. The rest should be scrapped.
I am not sure I would say the Tennessee portion is useless. Of course I travel between Evansville and Memphis quite a bit. Union City is a pain with the speed trap. You could make the argument of using 155 and 55 past Dyersburg, although that does add a few miles. Now, once I reach Dyersburg, I find it quicker to stay on 51, so I think most traffic would do the same if you used 155-55.
I will agree with you on the MS-AR section. Having lived in Houston, I do see the need for 59 between Houston and Texarkana to be upgraded. Simply co-sign 69 with 40 and 30 through Arkansas.
I will say this -- having driven I-40 once between Nashville and Memphis, I will never do that again unless I absolutely, positively have to go through Nashville for some reason. I will defer to the Kentucky parkways and I-69/US 51, using I-155 and I-55 if I'm going somewhere west of Memphis. I hated I-40 -- it was interminably long and choked with traffic.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2016, 05:48:07 PM
On US 41, the bridges are entirely in Kentucky and the state line is a drainage ditch north of the river because the state line is the low-water mark as it existed in 1792 and the river's course has changed since then. (I don't recall ever seeing when or how the river changed course in the 225-or-so years since Kentucky became a state). But where the I-69 bridges will be built, the river is the state line.
Even though the river is, for the most part, entirely in Kentucky, there are construction and maintenance agreements with neighboring states. For instance, Ohio built the new Ironton-Russell bridge and the US Grant bridge that carries US 23. Kentucky built the new I-65 northbound bridge and Indiana built the new I-265 bridge. Indiana is also doing a major painting job on the Lincoln Trail Bridge between Cannelton and Hawesville.
Isn't the I-64 Sherman Minton Bridge Indiana's responsibility?
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 26, 2016, 11:14:50 AM
Union City is a pain with the speed trap.
Union City is a trap period. The amount of red light cameras and speed cameras through there is ridiculous. I'll be very happy once I can bypass that town on I-69.
Quote from: US 41 on December 26, 2016, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on December 26, 2016, 11:14:50 AM
Union City is a pain with the speed trap.
Union City is a trap period. The amount of red light cameras and speed cameras through there is ridiculous. I'll be very happy once I can bypass that town on I-69.
Sadly, they will probably just create a new trap on it.
For Avalanchez and any others who hopes they don't build a new 69 bridge, just another regular occurrence along the only link between Henderson and Evansville. I am sure not too many workers have children on the other side to get to today........
http://www.14news.com/story/34159187/traffic-alert-situation-at-twin-bridges-causes-backup