AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: I-69 Ohio River Bridge  (Read 240669 times)

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 367
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: May 17, 2019, 12:13:07 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #925 on: December 18, 2018, 10:15:44 AM »

Glad to see this project moving forward.  Certainly seems like Indiana & Kentucky could be done with I-69 by the mid-2020s, maybe sans some work in Fulton, KY (due to KY waiting on TN).

they gave louisville 3 bridges, why can't they give 3 to this metro area?

Louisville has 5 bridges:
Sherman Minton (I-64)
Clark Memorial (US-31)
John F Kennedy (I-65 SB)
Abraham Lincoln (I-65 NB)
Lewis & Clark (IN 265/KY 841)

Louisville metro area has 1,293,953 versus Evansville's 358,676
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13135
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 04:53:14 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #926 on: December 18, 2018, 03:06:06 PM »

I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3561
  • Last Login: Today at 03:40:56 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #927 on: December 18, 2018, 03:16:33 PM »

I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.

For those traveling north-south without stopping in Louisville, taking 264 west to 64 west to 265 east only adds 4.6 miles to the trip - not too significant if making a longer journey.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Scottb5411

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5
  • Tour Bus Driver for MST

  • Age: 42
  • Location: St Louis, MO
  • Last Login: January 04, 2019, 12:50:30 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #928 on: January 03, 2019, 10:22:32 PM »

I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.

For those traveling north-south without stopping in Louisville, taking 264 west to 64 west to 265 east only adds 4.6 miles to the trip - not too significant if making a longer journey.

I work in Nashville, live in St Louis, but just before Thanksgiving last year I had finished work and then drove to O'Hare to pick up a friend flying in from the UK (I know, but he got a REALLY good deal on flights). Taking I264-64-265 added a whole 6 minutes to my arrival time, only rush hour would maybe make me go over the bridge and pay the toll, which I'd be forced to pay by mail as I have no I-Pass.
Logged
How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?

SSR_317

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 208
  • Why does FHWA hate "Exit 0"?

  • Age: 62
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 08:13:15 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #929 on: January 05, 2019, 02:25:37 PM »

I still say that I can't comprehend dealing with Louisville city street traffic or the extra mileage of I-64 and I-265 vs. just paying the toll and using I-65. It doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps for through traffic, but not all local commuters are able to afford the extra cost of tolls on their already stretched-thin budgets. But (warning: personal opinion follows) the politicians who impose tolls are all wealthy enough to ignore the impact of such tolls on the poor & the rapidly shrinking middle class. Eisenhower has to be rolling in his grave over the fact that the Feds (under the Dubya administration & the Congress at the time) allowed tolling to be imposed on previously-completed Interstate highways.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5496
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:40 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #930 on: January 05, 2019, 03:10:29 PM »

^^^^^^^^
There's a certain type of algorithm involved with the joint decision to deploy a tolled I-69 bridge and retain a (possibly) free single US 41 2-lane (1+1) span.  Even with retention of a single albeit lowered-capacity free crossing, there's liable to be a cost to the user in terms of time, particularly if regular Evansville-Henderson commuters start crowding onto the reduced span.  That's pretty much an unknown (albeit statistically estimable) factor, since the current situation is a 2+2 free-crossing but "surface" road arrangement; the AADT and other stats are a known factor, but interpolating it into what would happen with the future freeway wouldn't be terribly exacting.  My own guess would be that most of the interregional traffic would shift to I-69, as would part of any commute traffic (particularly from the northern outskirts of Evansville); I wouldn't anticipate much in the way of long-distance "shunpiking" -- but I would expect at least half of local traffic to keep using the truncated US 41 facility, and that it would see congestion shortly down the line, if not from the beginning.  It also would probably be prudent to do a combination of ORT and maybe a single cash lane per direction on the I-69 bridge with the usual price differential between them.  Eventually some sort of equilibrium would be achieved -- a "natural" trade-off between time convenience and/or speed via the new I-69 bridge, or the likely congestion of a single-lane surface-road crossing, albeit at no immediate cash cost to the driver. 

IMO, if the single bridge is retained, tolling it would be a mistake that would likely result in some degree of congestion on even the tolled I-69 bridge, since the higher-capacity facility would likely be the selection utilized by more local drivers unless the US 41 two-lane structure just happened to be more convenient for a particular destination.   
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 406
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 10:10:32 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #931 on: January 05, 2019, 03:23:22 PM »

^^^^^^^^
There's a certain type of algorithm involved with the joint decision to deploy a tolled I-69 bridge and retain a (possibly) free single US 41 2-lane (1+1) span.  Even with retention of a single albeit lowered-capacity free crossing, there's liable to be a cost to the user in terms of time, particularly if regular Evansville-Henderson commuters start crowding onto the reduced span.  That's pretty much an unknown (albeit statistically estimable) factor, since the current situation is a 2+2 free-crossing but "surface" road arrangement; the AADT and other stats are a known factor, but interpolating it into what would happen with the future freeway wouldn't be terribly exacting.  My own guess would be that most of the interregional traffic would shift to I-69, as would part of any commute traffic (particularly from the northern outskirts of Evansville); I wouldn't anticipate much in the way of long-distance "shunpiking" -- but I would expect at least half of local traffic to keep using the truncated US 41 facility, and that it would see congestion shortly down the line, if not from the beginning.  It also would probably be prudent to do a combination of ORT and maybe a single cash lane per direction on the I-69 bridge with the usual price differential between them.  Eventually some sort of equilibrium would be achieved -- a "natural" trade-off between time convenience and/or speed via the new I-69 bridge, or the likely congestion of a single-lane surface-road crossing, albeit at no immediate cash cost to the driver. 

IMO, if the single bridge is retained, tolling it would be a mistake that would likely result in some degree of congestion on even the tolled I-69 bridge, since the higher-capacity facility would likely be the selection utilized by more local drivers unless the US 41 two-lane structure just happened to be more convenient for a particular destination.

It would be just as easy to build an easy on/easy off express lane(s) on the same bridge for local traffic only toll free. It would be for river crossing only. If you want to go farther, you gotta pay the tolled on/off ramp.
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3297
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:25:15 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #932 on: January 05, 2019, 08:49:51 PM »

^^^^^^^^
There's a certain type of algorithm involved with the joint decision to deploy a tolled I-69 bridge and retain a (possibly) free single US 41 2-lane (1+1) span.  Even with retention of a single albeit lowered-capacity free crossing, there's liable to be a cost to the user in terms of time, particularly if regular Evansville-Henderson commuters start crowding onto the reduced span.  That's pretty much an unknown (albeit statistically estimable) factor, since the current situation is a 2+2 free-crossing but "surface" road arrangement; the AADT and other stats are a known factor, but interpolating it into what would happen with the future freeway wouldn't be terribly exacting.  My own guess would be that most of the interregional traffic would shift to I-69, as would part of any commute traffic (particularly from the northern outskirts of Evansville); I wouldn't anticipate much in the way of long-distance "shunpiking" -- but I would expect at least half of local traffic to keep using the truncated US 41 facility, and that it would see congestion shortly down the line, if not from the beginning.  It also would probably be prudent to do a combination of ORT and maybe a single cash lane per direction on the I-69 bridge with the usual price differential between them.  Eventually some sort of equilibrium would be achieved -- a "natural" trade-off between time convenience and/or speed via the new I-69 bridge, or the likely congestion of a single-lane surface-road crossing, albeit at no immediate cash cost to the driver. 

IMO, if the single bridge is retained, tolling it would be a mistake that would likely result in some degree of congestion on even the tolled I-69 bridge, since the higher-capacity facility would likely be the selection utilized by more local drivers unless the US 41 two-lane structure just happened to be more convenient for a particular destination.

It would be just as easy to build an easy on/easy off express lane(s) on the same bridge for local traffic only toll free. It would be for river crossing only. If you want to go farther, you gotta pay the tolled on/off ramp.

An example would be the DE 1 crossing of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the bridge tollgate is south of the first interchange south of the bridge, allowing locals to cross for *free*.

Mike
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5496
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:49:40 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #933 on: January 06, 2019, 12:36:04 AM »

^^^^^^^^^
I'm presuming that all this is referring to the I-69 bridge and not the remaining US 41 crossing, which is and will be in the future a strictly surface facility.  From what I understand, the new bridge will be 4 lanes only (for economy's sake); a "local" service lane in addition to that would kick the cost of the bridge well up beyond what KY and IN are expecting.  To me, that's a measure that does not have to be taken -- just let the new bridge be generally tolled for all traffic and keep the US 41 2-lane bridge free; it'll get used by locals who would rather not pay and are willing to put up with localized congestion; those who aren't so willing will have to suck it up and use the I-69 bridge -- paying for the convenience and likely avoidance of congestion. 
Logged

2trailertrucker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 139
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 08:22:53 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #934 on: January 06, 2019, 03:51:35 PM »

I wonder how much traffic will be on the US 41 bridge after the new bridges are built. It reminds me of US 31 through Kokomo. How much traffic followed the bypass?
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13135
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 04:53:14 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #935 on: January 06, 2019, 07:46:03 PM »

I wonder how much traffic will be on the US 41 bridge after the new bridges are built. It reminds me of US 31 through Kokomo. How much traffic followed the bypass?

I think locals traveling between Henderson and downtown Evansville, who won't want to go out of their way to the east and then back west again, will use the old bridge. Also anyone who exits I-69 for some of the services along the US 41 "strip", and doesn't want to take US 60 out to re-enter I-69.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 201
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 09:37:27 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #936 on: January 07, 2019, 08:49:19 PM »

Has there been any discussion on the design of the I-69 bridge?  I recall the original 2004 Draft EIS had called for a cable-stayed structure to carry I-69 over the Ohio River. Would anyone happen to know if they are still considering a cable-stayed bridge for the current EIS, or are they proposing a different bridge design?
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 406
  • Last Login: May 22, 2019, 10:10:32 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #937 on: January 07, 2019, 09:53:29 PM »

Has there been any discussion on the design of the I-69 bridge?  I recall the original 2004 Draft EIS had called for a cable-stayed structure to carry I-69 over the Ohio River. Would anyone happen to know if they are still considering a cable-stayed bridge for the current EIS, or are they proposing a different bridge design?

I haven't seen any design proposals.

But being like most DOT's, they will probably have the design/engineering firm use a template.  And since they already said it will be cable stayed, it will probably look like either the Musial-Veterans (I-70) bridge or the Lewis and Clark in Louisville.
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2168
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: May 12, 2019, 11:07:52 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #938 on: January 08, 2019, 09:28:08 AM »

I would be shocked if it the new bridge was something other than a cable-stay main span.  For the distance needed, a two tower cable-stay is the most economical bridge type to construct.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.