Will have to wait until I can find a link to post verification, but Kentucky has announced that it will later this year be signing I-69 along I-24 and the Western Kentucky Parkway, between the Purchase and Pennyrile parkways, a stretch totaling around 51 miles. FHWA signed off on it last week and the signage is contingent upon advertising for some improvements along the WK Parkway, and a waiver of other not-quite-current-interstate-standards exemptions.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2011, 04:20:43 PM
Will have to wait until I can find a link to post verification, but Kentucky has announced that it will later this year be signing I-69 along I-24 and the Western Kentucky Parkway, between the Purchase and Pennyrile parkways, a stretch totaling around 51 miles. FHWA signed off on it last week and the signage is contingent upon advertising for some improvements along the WK Parkway, and a waiver of other not-quite-current-interstate-standards exemptions.
Here's a link:
http://www.isurfwebster.com/news/news/8307-i-69-is-now-official.html
"Gov. Steve Beshear today announced a milestone accomplishment for Kentucky transportation — federal approval of an agreement by which a 38-mile section of the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway will be designated Interstate 69 this fall ...
The agreement, which Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez approved on Aug. 25, covers the Ford/Western Kentucky Parkway from its interchange with I-24 near Eddyville to its interchange with the Breathitt/Pennyrile Parkway near Nortonville, in Hopkins County.
The agreement spells out improvements the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet will undertake to bring parts of the parkway up to interstate standards. It also identifies design features that are at less than interstate standard but which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has deemed acceptable.
Once the agreed improvements have been advertised to construction contractors, the designated section of the Ford/Western Kentucky Parkway will be eligible for the distinctive red, white and blue shield signs that identify interstate routes. In addition, about 17 miles of I-24, from Eddyville to the Carroll/Purchase Parkway interchange, will also bear I-69 signs, making the total, initial I-69 designation 55 miles long.
Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock said the projects should be advertised by Sept. 30, for inclusion in a construction contract letting that is scheduled Oct. 21. The work will include upgrading bridge rails and guardrails, improving exit and entrance ramps to meet interstate standards, and raising some overpass bridges to increase clearance.
Future agreed improvements will include widening paved shoulders and reconstructing the KY 109 interchange, at Dawson Springs ..."
Here is link to same press release at Gov. Beshear's office:
http://governor.ky.gov/pressrelease.htm?PostingGUID={AC96E6DB-B9F4-4698-8017-A05FF61347BA}
So hb, they aren't going to post I-66 along the same segment at the same time? :P :happy:
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me. No grandfathering, no cutting corners. Those standards are there for safety and better flow of traffic. KYTC is trying to do it on the cheap and got the Feds to play along.
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me.
Are you going to go around to probably half the existing Interstates and remove signs because they don't meet current standards?
Quote from: NE2 on August 31, 2011, 09:17:10 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me.
Are you going to go around to probably half the existing Interstates and remove signs because they don't meet current standards?
All I can say is that at least KTC is making an effort to upgrade the WK/Ford Pkwy, and the I-69 shields are really just sort of an early bonus that could go ahead and spur some much-needed economic development in the LBL, Eddyville, Princeton, and Dawson Springs areas.
I just wonder if they have the plans in place yet to build two-lane flyovers for the cloverleaf movements at WK/Ford Pkwy eastbound-Pennyrile/Breathitt Pkwy northbound and at I-24 westbound-Purchase/Carroll Pkwy southbound.
I wonder also if the FHWA tends to shun the "TEMP" interstate designation these days...
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me. No grandfathering, no cutting corners. Those standards are there for safety and better flow of traffic. KYTC is trying to do it on the cheap and got the Feds to play along.
I have said before, and will say again ... take the average passenger in a vehicle heading north on I-65 around the Sonora or Glendale exits, and give them a sleeping pill. Wake them up 35 minutes later on the Bluegrass Parkway near Bardstown, and they won't have a clue that they aren't on an interstate anymore if they don't see a BG Parkway sign. Kentucky's parkways are virtually indistinguishable from four-lane rural interstates.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2011, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me. No grandfathering, no cutting corners. Those standards are there for safety and better flow of traffic. KYTC is trying to do it on the cheap and got the Feds to play along.
I have said before, and will say again ... take the average passenger in a vehicle heading north on I-65 around the Sonora or Glendale exits, and give them a sleeping pill. Wake them up 35 minutes later on the Bluegrass Parkway near Bardstown, and they won't have a clue that they aren't on an interstate anymore if they don't see a BG Parkway sign. Kentucky's parkways are virtually indistinguishable from four-lane rural interstates.
Other than the antiquated tollbooth interchanges that still exist, there is really no way to tell the difference between the average KY interstate and average KY parkway. They're to the same standards.
Now, if they were trying to go the Wyoming I-180 route and sign a road with lights, I would side with ShawnP. But, this is a freeway finally getting it's rightfully common route number for continuity's sake.
Are there any plans to replace those cloverleaf loop ramps with full-speed flyovers at those two interchanges where I-69 will be making those 90 degree turns (I-24/Purchase Parkway and Western Kentucky/Pennyrile Parkway), so that I-69 would flow effortlessly through both?
Mike
HB, one more thing, do you know if the Parkways will get new exit numbers to match I-69's mileage?
Quote from: mgk920 on September 01, 2011, 12:37:26 AM
Are there any plans to replace those cloverleaf loop ramps with full-speed flyovers at those two interchanges where I-69 will be making those 90 degree turns (I-24/Purchase Parkway and Western Kentucky/Pennyrile Parkway), so that I-69 would flow effortlessly through both?
Mike
They will eventually have to do that, I'm sure, but for now since the only parkway to get the I-69 signs is the WK Parkway, that will be way off in the distance. However, it wouldn't be unprecedented to keep the cloverleafs and sign I-69 continuously. See I-55 at US 64/US 70/US 79 in Memphis.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 01, 2011, 12:46:11 AM
HB, one more thing, do you know if the Parkways will get new exit numbers to match I-69's mileage?
I don't think they are that far along in the thought process yet, but I would think they will not change the numbers until I-69 is continuously signed from the Tennessee line to the Indiana line.
My question would be with the I-24 multiplex, which highway's exits get numbered. My guess would be it would stay with 24, but who knows. Personally, I traveled the WK Parkway along with I-24 to Paducah last Sunday and honestly felt that the highway was close enough to interstate standards anyway, and it felt like travelling down an interstate with a 70mph speed limit. My last question would be, does the Western Kentucky Parkway get demoted from where I-24 to the Pennyrile or will it still be called the Western Kentucky Parkway, but with an I-69 shield on it.
I am not a privy to KYTC's decision-making process, but I would guess that the mileposts will stay as they are. I would figure that I-69 will be consigned with the WK parkway, not replace the designation.
Also, I see no need at the present to reconstruct the present cloverleaf where the WK Parkway meets the Pennyrile Parkway. There is nothing inherintly unsafe about a cloverleaf interchange as long as the weaving volumes are relatively low, which right now they are. Based on the current rate of upgrading, it will likely be years before enough of I-69 has been completed or upgraded to significificantally increase traffic on those roadways. The interchange could be upgraded if and when it is needed.
I suspect I-69 is being signed at this time for political and economic development reasons. Until it is continuously signed throughout Kentucky, I would be surprised to see the mileposts or exit numbers to be changed.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 01, 2011, 01:03:16 PM
I suspect I-69 is being signed at this time for political and economic development reasons. Until it is continuously signed throughout Kentucky, I would be surprised to see the mileposts or exit numbers to be changed.
The incumbent governor is running for re-election.
Quote from: Sykotyk on September 01, 2011, 12:28:05 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2011, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me. No grandfathering, no cutting corners. Those standards are there for safety and better flow of traffic. KYTC is trying to do it on the cheap and got the Feds to play along.
I have said before, and will say again ... take the average passenger in a vehicle heading north on I-65 around the Sonora or Glendale exits, and give them a sleeping pill. Wake them up 35 minutes later on the Bluegrass Parkway near Bardstown, and they won't have a clue that they aren't on an interstate anymore if they don't see a BG Parkway sign. Kentucky's parkways are virtually indistinguishable from four-lane rural interstates.
Other than the antiquated tollbooth interchanges that still exist, there is really no way to tell the difference between the average KY interstate and average KY parkway. They're to the same standards.
Now, if they were trying to go the Wyoming I-180 route and sign a road with lights, I would side with ShawnP. But, this is a freeway finally getting it's rightfully common route number for continuity's sake.
Right. As long as we tolerate 180 in Wyoming, and "I-78" approaching the Holland Tunnel, being anal about just when NY 17 will be deserving of the I-86 designation all the way across (to take another example) is a bit silly. Not to say hypocritical.
But if we're interested in continuity, why not do the Purchase and Pennyrile as well? Or alternatively wait until they're ready? I'm not sure I see the point in having 50 miles of an Interstate dead-end that dead-ends 200 miles south of its next segment (I mean the distance from the WK/Pennyrile junction to the northeast side of Indianapolis)?
Also, why bother with the 24/69 duplex now, rather than leaving it as 24 until the Purchase is signed as 69?
Sorry for the slight incoherence of this post - thinking out loud.
Michael, I agree that a duplex of I-69 and I-24 is unnecessary on its merits. That is why I think this effort to sign a piece of I-69 is primarily political and economic. However, I would not be surprised to see the Pennyrile signed as I-69 within a couple of years after the first phase, once minimal upgrades are made to the Western Kentucky Pkwy. At that point you will have some near-continuity, being that over 80 miles of new alignment I-69 will be completed across the river in Indiana by then.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 01, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
Also, why bother with the 24/69 duplex now, rather than leaving it as 24 until the Purchase is signed as 69?
They want to do a NC. lol. Just look at the I-77/I-74 mutliplex. ;)
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 01, 2011, 03:13:57 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 01, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
Also, why bother with the 24/69 duplex now, rather than leaving it as 24 until the Purchase is signed as 69?
They want to do a NC. lol. Just look at the I-77/I-74 mutliplex. ;)
Or the just as useless I-55/69 MS overlap to the TN line. :spin:
I'll be on those roads in a couple of weeks, but I think that's too early to see the new signs.
it would be nice if the first run had the state name, but I doubt Kentucky would try that.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 01, 2011, 02:05:46 PM
Michael, I agree that a duplex of I-69 and I-24 is unnecessary on its merits. That is why I think this effort to sign a piece of I-69 is primarily political and economic. However, I would not be surprised to see the Pennyrile signed as I-69 within a couple of years after the first phase, once minimal upgrades are made to the Western Kentucky Pkwy. At that point you will have some near-continuity, being that over 80 miles of new alignment I-69 will be completed across the river in Indiana by then.
No reason the Purchase Parkway could not be signed, either, under those circumstances.
Kentucky is not one of the state-name states. Wouldn't ever expect a KY 69 to pop up.
Quote from: Steve on September 02, 2011, 06:30:43 PM
Kentucky is not one of the state-name states. Wouldn't ever expect a KY 69 to pop up.
Actually, we're going back to using the state name, even in the signs along the interstates themselves. Lots of new state-name I-75 and I-64 shields in the Lexington area have been posted in the last year.
But speaking of KY 69, I expect that route will have to go away since Kentucky doesn't duplicate route numbers -- and the state route and the interstate are in the same general area of the state.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2011, 02:42:21 AM
But speaking of KY 69, I expect that route will have to go away since Kentucky doesn't duplicate route numbers -- and the state route and the interstate are in the same general area of the state.
But wasn't a US-79 and a KY-79 who co-exist? Although the KY-79 seems to act as a defacto extension of US-79.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2011, 02:42:21 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 02, 2011, 06:30:43 PM
Kentucky is not one of the state-name states. Wouldn't ever expect a KY 69 to pop up.
Actually, we're going back to using the state name, even in the signs along the interstates themselves. Lots of new state-name I-75 and I-64 shields in the Lexington area have been posted in the last year.
Really? Got any pictures?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5028%2F5683397779_1254aa4744_z.jpg&hash=96e17294f20d72554405db28c7f5d5dbb9d2217c)
that is excellent news! I'd been disappointed by the looming scarcity of state-named shields
There are state-named shields posted for every interstate in Kentucky except I-24. I have yet to find one of those.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
There are state-named shields posted for every interstate in Kentucky except I-24. I have yet to find one of those.
That's including the 3di's?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 03, 2011, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
There are state-named shields posted for every interstate in Kentucky except I-24. I have yet to find one of those.
That's including the 3di's?
Definitely saw some for Interstate 275 mainline and side roads in 2009.
Tim found a I-471 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=KY19794711) last year.
None were left for the I-264 or I-265 mainlines in 2009, but we did not scour the side roads.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
There are state-named shields posted for every interstate in Kentucky except I-24. I have yet to find one of those.
I could have sworn that I saw a KY I-24 shield on US 68/KY 80 at Cadiz last year. This was during the trip Adam Prince and I made around NW TN and SW KY one fall day.
But otherwise you're right. The only state that regularly erects state-name I-24 shields is GA. Otherwise it runs through states that almost exclusively use neutered shields (IL, KY, and TN).
Quote from: Alex on September 03, 2011, 08:18:35 PM
Definitely saw some for Interstate 275 mainline and side roads in 2009.
Tim found a I-471 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=KY19794711) last year.
None were left for the I-264 or I-265 mainlines in 2009, but we did not scour the side roads.
Plenty on the side roads intersecting 264 and 265. And at least one on mainline 265 as of back in the spring.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5027%2F5791862970_62a1f932e7_z.jpg&hash=a3ac33c4a416ac271e1adfd2ea1e2b9a10e3b503)
Sorry for the blurry pic, but the fugly KY 841 sign makes up for it. :-p
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2011, 02:55:44 PM
that is excellent news! I'd been disappointed by the looming scarcity of state-named shields
There's a looming scarcity of state-named shields?
I think that it is about time to finally sign I-69 in Kentucky! For those who worry about exit numbers, let those get used to the new route designation first. Although, if like New Jersey where NJ 3 east of US 1 & 9 has been truncated for over 50 years, they will never accept the change. When I-495 (now NJ 495) was created from pre existing NJ 3, all those around are mostly gone now, and people who are born since are calling it still Route 3.
Quote from: Alex on September 03, 2011, 08:18:35 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 03, 2011, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2011, 05:36:48 PM
There are state-named shields posted for every interstate in Kentucky except I-24. I have yet to find one of those.
That's including the 3di's?
Definitely saw some for Interstate 275 mainline and side roads in 2009.
Tim found a I-471 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=KY19794711) last year.
None were left for the I-264 or I-265 mainlines in 2009, but we did not scour the side roads.
There's also a 471 on KY 1892 EB, which is on my I-471 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ky/i-471). There's most of an I-264 shield on my 264 page, and there IS a 265 shield still on the mainline WB as featured on my 265 page.
I'm thinking that I-65 will suddenly get approved for the unique Scotty's Construction offer (offered to bond I-65 six laning for the final 30 plus miles with a state payback). As HB Elkins would say Breasher will make a splash with this.
Quote from: ShawnP on September 05, 2011, 06:04:04 PM
I'm thinking that I-65 will suddenly get approved for the unique Scotty's Construction offer (offered to bond I-65 six laning for the final 30 plus miles with a state payback). As HB Elkins would say Breasher will make a splash with this.
I'm not so sure. I remember reading something about a plan similar to this in Kentucky being shot down due to some legal concerns, and thinking it would bring this proposal to a halt.
I was in Wal Mart and checked the new 2013 Rand McNally with the Blue Ridge Parkway Viaduct near Grandfather Mountain gracing the cover, and saw I-69 marked only where concurrent with I-24 and the Western Kentucky Parkway ONLY! The other two Parkways were not marked as of yet.
It goes along with everything that Kentucky is doing as per this topic starter. Its better than some map makers, as I saw it done and under construction in the Hoosier State on one other printer. Although, RN being as close to the best as you can possibly get, has an error where it fails to show one other roadway in a neighboring state that is currently under construction.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 23, 2012, 07:52:44 PM
I was in Wal Mart and checked the new 2013 Rand McNally with the Blue Ridge Parkway Viaduct near Grandfather Mountain gracing the cover, and saw I-69 marked only where concurrent with I-24 and the Western Kentucky Parkway ONLY! The other two Parkways were not marked as of yet.
The Purchase and Breathitt Parkway sections are not a part of I-69 yet. There are only sporadic green Future I-69 signs posted at this time.
As for I-24 & 69, I recently watched video's from Tom Valazak's Crosscountryroads.com site (http://www.crosscountryroads.com/vids_index.html), and as of March 20, 2012, I-69 was not signed along this stretch.
Quote from: Alex on May 24, 2012, 01:34:27 AM
As for I-24 & 69, I recently watched video's from Tom Valazak's Crosscountryroads.com site (http://www.crosscountryroads.com/vids_index.html), and as of March 20, 2012, I-69 was not signed along this stretch.
This March 6, 2012 article (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/06/i-69-improvements-begin-on-western-ky-parkway/) indicates that, as of March 6, a contractor was pouring concrete anchors for the new signs and working east-to-west from the I-69 (Western Kentucky Parkway) interchange with the Pennyrile Parkway over to the I-69/I-24 overlap:
Quote
... a contractor for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has started installing permanent I-69 signs along the route, beginning with the pouring of concrete anchors for the new signs.
The contractor, Westate Construction Inc. of Hopkinsville, is starting at the WK Parkway (WKP) interchange with the Pennyrile Parkway near Madisonville and will be moving westward. Minimal traffic disruptions are expected.
New signs will also be placed along 16 miles of the existing I-24 near Eddyville that will double as a portion of I-69 ...
Anybody have any updated field reports?
Quote from: Alex on May 24, 2012, 01:34:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 23, 2012, 07:52:44 PM
I was in Wal Mart and checked the new 2013 Rand McNally with the Blue Ridge Parkway Viaduct near Grandfather Mountain gracing the cover, and saw I-69 marked only where concurrent with I-24 and the Western Kentucky Parkway ONLY! The other two Parkways were not marked as of yet.
The Purchase and Breathitt Parkway sections are not a part of I-69 yet. There are only sporadic green Future I-69 signs posted at this time.
As for I-24 & 69, I recently watched video's from Tom Valazak's Crosscountryroads.com site (http://www.crosscountryroads.com/vids_index.html), and as of March 20, 2012, I-69 was not signed along this stretch.
I-69 was not signed along I-24 as of April 22 when I was in the area.
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me. No grandfathering, no cutting corners. Those standards are there for safety and better flow of traffic. KYTC is trying to do it on the cheap and got the Feds to play along.
I disagree. I think the standards are too strict, and result in escalating costs for repair to existing interstates.
Quote from: kendancy66 on May 25, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
Quote from: ShawnP on August 31, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
FHWA FAIL if you ask me. Anything less than Interstate standard is unacceptable to me. No grandfathering, no cutting corners. Those standards are there for safety and better flow of traffic. KYTC is trying to do it on the cheap and got the Feds to play along.
I disagree. I think the standards are too strict, and result in escalating costs for repair to existing interstates.
I say again. If there can be a 70 mph speed limit on I-24 and there can be a 70 mph limit on the WK Parkway, what's the difference?
The average motorist couldn't tell you if you were on an interstate or on one of Kentucky's former toll roads, which are not quite to interstate standards, if they didn't see the road signs.
The FHWA does tend to allow more waivers in certain areas than others. For example, substandard horizontal or vertical curvature, vertical clearance, median width without barriers, or short bridges lacking shoulders are unlikely to make it through. 8' instead of 10' shoulders, long bridges without shoulders, certain interchange configurations may make it through with waivers. I do see the point that if an existing freeway permits all vehicles and does not have any non-freeway sections, it ought to be able to be grandfathered, whereas new freeways clearly need to meet standards.
Did you get long and short mixed up in your comment about bridges? Seems FHWA would be more lenient toward short bridges without shoulders than long bridges w/o shoulders.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 26, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
Did you get long and short mixed up in your comment about bridges? Seems FHWA would be more lenient toward short bridges without shoulders than long bridges w/o shoulders.
I assume the difference is that long bridges are more expensive to replace than short ones.
There is a "nice" substandard bridge they need to fix on the Pennyrile Pkwy at Mortons Gap. I can't imagine the Feds letting that remain as is. The NB on-ramp at the Pilot Truck Stop is a yield sign onto the bridge over the cross road with no shoulders or acceleration lane. I stop there often going north and I "hate" that yield situation. Lots of trucks use it.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 26, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
Did you get long and short mixed up in your comment about bridges? Seems FHWA would be more lenient toward short bridges without shoulders than long bridges w/o shoulders.
Long bridges are excepted from shoulder requirements due to the cost of building a wider bridge just for shoulders. While it's the same percentage of a short bridge's cost, short bridges cost a lot less so it's a much smaller percentage of the agency's budget to build short bridges to full width.
At the bridge I am referring to, there is a non-existent acceleration lane that is the main issue. You come up to the bridge on the ramp, you then have to yield or stop and then you have to directly enter the through traffic lane.
It is not just a question of no shoulders on the bridge. This location is a hazard right now and it should be fixed whether or not the Pennyrile was designated I-69. In fact, this section of the Pennyrile was originally constructed as a section of US 41 up to 10 years before the rest of the Pennyrile was built. This section of roadway reflects late 1950's standards.
There are only three places where the I-69 extension is very much alive according to the RN Road atlas. Mississippi, Kentucky, and Indiana. With this being said, does not mean that there is not more as there have been plenty of places where freeways were under construction and not at all marked on RN.
It is interesting to see that KY has two roads signed on RN and not actually yet signed by KDOT. It would not at all suprise me to see I-69 shields go up where RN does not have marked like south of I-24 and along the Penryville before the two mentioned are.
What is even more interesting is the fact that I-66 is not mentioned along the Western Kentucky Parkway and I-24 with I-69 as Kentucky does have it proposed and permission to go further if they want to.
As far as I know, I-66 is more or less dead at least for the present, Kentucky put it out of its misery several years ago due to lack of funding. Plus, I didn't notice any other states very interested in it in the first place. IMHO, it is one of the most ridiculous proposals for an interstate route I have ever seen anyway. It is not a direct route, and it doesn't connect any major population areas, and it doesn't even leave Kentucky.
As far as I-69 is concerned, I would not be surprised to see it completed south to Memphis from Indianapolis within the next 15 years, whether it goes all the way to Mexico or not. Even just that northern section would complement the interstate grid very nicely.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 27, 2012, 09:22:18 AM
At the bridge I am referring to, there is a non-existent acceleration lane that is the main issue. You come up to the bridge on the ramp, you then have to yield or stop and then you have to directly enter the through traffic lane.
It is not just a question of no shoulders on the bridge. This location is a hazard right now and it should be fixed whether or not the Pennyrile was designated I-69. In fact, this section of the Pennyrile was originally constructed as a section of US 41 up to 10 years before the rest of the Pennyrile was built. This section of roadway reflects late 1950's standards.
The KY 56 interchange is also insanely dangerous. It may not be busy, but it is still unacceptable. I drove it last fall and almost got rear-ended as I was stopped trying to merge into the freeway. I don't think there are services there so it probably gets less traffic, thank goodness.
Quote from: mukade on May 28, 2012, 01:01:25 PM
The KY 56 interchange is also insanely dangerous. It may not be busy, but it is still unacceptable. I drove it last fall and almost got rear-ended as I was stopped trying to merge into the freeway. I don't think there are services there so it probably gets less traffic, thank goodness.
Not sure of the top of my head, but is that one of the old cloverleafs where a toll plaza used to be?
Yep, it is. It was bad timing, but as I was merging two school buses and two semis were coming down the right lane with a pickup right on my tail. The road was actually not too busy when I drove it.
Yes, the Sebree exit is where there was a toll plaza..........it cost a dollar as I recall. There was another one was just north of Hopkinsville.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 27, 2012, 04:52:45 PM
As far as I know, I-66 is more or less dead at least for the present, Kentucky put it out of its misery several years ago due to lack of funding. Plus, I didn't notice any other states very interested in it in the first place. IMHO, it is one of the most ridiculous proposals for an interstate route I have ever seen anyway. It is not a direct route, and it doesn't connect any major population areas, and it doesn't even leave Kentucky.
As far as I-69 is concerned, I would not be surprised to see it completed south to Memphis from Indianapolis within the next 15 years, whether it goes all the way to Mexico or not. Even just that northern section would complement the interstate grid very nicely.
I did not think either there was a need for I-66, if it were to be built I-50 would have been the most logical number.
Yeah, I believe that from Memphis to Indy will get built by say 2030. That I would like to see anyway also. I think it is a great corridor like I-49 from Shrevport to Kansas City is as well. Just like I-69 south of Memphis, I could care one way or the other if US 90 gets upgraded to interstate from NO to Lafayette.
I traveled from Evansville, IN to Paducah, KY two weeks ago, and drove on the section of the Pennyrile Parkway and Western Kentucky Parkway that comprises a lot of the "future" I-69 routing. A few observations:
1) Google Maps may call it I-69, but none of the Pennyrile and only about 1/3 of the Western Kentucky Parkways were signed with the Interstate shield. In the latter case, it was co-signed with the blue parkway shields. On-ramps didn't seem to denote it much, either.
2) "Future Interstate" medium-sized signs are posted a little afterwards, for roughly every other exit.
3) Some construction on the WKP east of Paducah, at around Princeton, was down to one lane. The Interstate shields were visible between the two construction zones.
4) So what if there's no guardrail in the center median, or there's only roughly 10-15 feet between sections? Not much traffic.
5) Seem to be really narrow on/off-ramp loops that have little space to permit traffic going on and off the parkway at nearly the same time. Again, not much traffic, so its not as if older Interstates don't have the same phenomenon.
Took a few crappy pics (figuring out a point-and-shoot that doesn't zoom nicely), maybe I'll post a few later.
Quote from: formulanone on June 11, 2012, 03:25:21 PM
5) Seem to be really narrow on/off-ramp loops that have little space to permit traffic going on and off the parkway at nearly the same time. Again, not much traffic, so its not as if older Interstates don't have the same phenomenon.
Those were where the toll booths used to be located beneath the overpasses. Entering and exiting traffic had to stop to pay toll, so there was no need for
an acceleration/deceleration lane a long merge lane. These will be corrected along the future interstate portions of the parkway.
^ Ah, didn't know that!