AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 Ohio River Bridge  (Read 249694 times)

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 370
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 03:41:14 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: 13562
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 11:33:06 AM
    • 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: 3743
  • Last Login: Today at 07:19:15 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: 243
  • Why does FHWA hate "Exit 0"?

  • Age: 63
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: September 28, 2019, 04:58:25 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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6039
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:02:12 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: 489
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 09:18:53 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: 3453
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:19:25 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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6039
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:02:12 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: 148
  • Last Login: Today at 05:26:00 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: 13562
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 11:33:06 AM
    • 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: 261
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 10:12:02 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: 489
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 09:18:53 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: 2211
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 03:02:29 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."

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1116
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:06:34 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #939 on: June 22, 2019, 12:53:49 PM »

Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

SSR_317

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 243
  • Why does FHWA hate "Exit 0"?

  • Age: 63
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: September 28, 2019, 04:58:25 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #940 on: June 22, 2019, 02:09:20 PM »

Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
IMHO, the people of Evansville & Henderson should accept ONLY Alternative 1B, as that maintains a TOLL-FREE crossing of the river on US 41. Just because we now have stop-free tolling technology does NOT mean it should be used at EVERY major river crossing!
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:07 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #941 on: June 22, 2019, 03:08:47 PM »

Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
IMHO, the people of Evansville & Henderson should accept ONLY Alternative 1B, as that maintains a TOLL-FREE crossing of the river on US 41. Just because we now have stop-free tolling technology does NOT mean it should be used at EVERY major river crossing!
Owensboro should push for 1A, making the next closest free bridge the US 231 crossing...possibly seeing more traffic and business from potential shunpiking

Also that would be a good time for KYTC to eliminate the at-grade US 231/60 northern/eastern split
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2323
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 03:13:00 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #942 on: June 22, 2019, 03:18:19 PM »

If they choose Alternative 1A, they should dedicate all the toll money to building and maintaining the Interstate 69 bridge. No toll money diversions for other purposes.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6039
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:02:12 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #943 on: June 22, 2019, 04:11:39 PM »

Bumping this thread as I noticed there is a new Project Handout:

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Project-Handout-June-2019.pdf

Pretty good summary of what has happened and what will/might happen.
IMHO, the people of Evansville & Henderson should accept ONLY Alternative 1B, as that maintains a TOLL-FREE crossing of the river on US 41. Just because we now have stop-free tolling technology does NOT mean it should be used at EVERY major river crossing!
Owensboro should push for 1A, making the next closest free bridge the US 231 crossing...possibly seeing more traffic and business from potential shunpiking

Also that would be a good time for KYTC to eliminate the at-grade US 231/60 northern/eastern split

Owensboro and its various official entities should realize by now they really don't have a dog in this race -- and should stay out of the toll vs. no-toll discussion regarding the US 41 crossing; neither the US 231 nor the IN 161 crossings are a viable shunpiking alternative, considering how much fuel would be used to schlep upriver to cross there.  Instead, they should concentrate on things that would be more productive for their interests:  getting an Interstate designation for the Audubon once the I-69 alignment has been finalized and lobbying for funds to upgrade the US 60 bypass. 
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:07 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #944 on: June 22, 2019, 04:27:56 PM »

Owensboro does not have a dog in Local shunpiking...but Regional/Long Distance travel, perhaps, especially if the travel destination is east on I-64 across the Ohio...but then again that traffic would probably continue along the Western KY Pkwy

For Evansville/Henderson commuters that cross the Ohio daily, either leaving US 41 Untolled or having a discount/free EZ-Pass account program based on Zip Code/Address would probably be appropriate. Where the “Discount/Free” vs “Regular Price” line is placed, who knows. And perhaps even a “Free” area, “Discount” a bit further out, and then full price. And consider also only allowing a Free/Discount program on the existing US 41 bridge, not the new I-69 bridge - make that full price regardless

I have no idea what Tolling strategies were studied to recommend tolling and what each strategy is valued at, in terms of toll revenue. Obviously if regular commuters are toll exempted or discounted, that will lower toll receipts
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 04:37:40 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13562
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 11:33:06 AM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #945 on: June 22, 2019, 07:30:46 PM »

Owensboro does not have a dog in Local shunpiking...but Regional/Long Distance travel, perhaps, especially if the travel destination is east on I-64 across the Ohio...but then again that traffic would probably continue along the Western KY Pkwy

For Evansville/Henderson commuters that cross the Ohio daily, either leaving US 41 Untolled or having a discount/free EZ-Pass account program based on Zip Code/Address would probably be appropriate. Where the “Discount/Free” vs “Regular Price” line is placed, who knows. And perhaps even a “Free” area, “Discount” a bit further out, and then full price. And consider also only allowing a Free/Discount program on the existing US 41 bridge, not the new I-69 bridge - make that full price regardless

I have no idea what Tolling strategies were studied to recommend tolling and what each strategy is valued at, in terms of toll revenue. Obviously if regular commuters are toll exempted or discounted, that will lower toll receipts

There's a commuter option for the Louisville bridges; no reason to think there wouldn't be for I-69 since many of the same players are involved in the development and marketing of the plans.
Logged

WKDAVE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11
  • Location: KY
  • Last Login: October 07, 2019, 08:39:26 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #946 on: June 23, 2019, 11:34:13 AM »

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

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

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

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

What people generally miss is all these discussions is how low traffic volumes are now and projected for the EVV-Henderson crossings. Unless the government, state or federal, puts up a lot more money there is a huge gap between toll revenues if BOTH bridges are tolled = if you keep 41 bridge free the funding gap increases more.  The Tolling issue is a math problem. Philosophical and Fairness debates aren't relevant. Tolling has to be done in a way for the project to "pay" for itself. Again, more "tax" money means lower need for toll revenues which changes the math.
Logged

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:07 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #947 on: June 23, 2019, 02:49:31 PM »

If/when I-69 into Memphis, TN is completed, will there even be much of a time/mileage benefit Indy <-> Memphis via I-69 vs I-70<->I-57<->I-55?

And if/when MO&AR get the “missing” extended I-57 section built (Walnut Ridge<->Poplar Bluff) that makes I-57 not just a St Louis Bypass but also a Memphis Bypass, there is no way I-69 has any advantage to Texas-bound traffic, and would be questionable if it would even save time/miles if/when AR&LA (and a Mississippi River Bridge) get their sections of I-69 constructed

I assume any Tolling study has accounted for this. Maybe I’m overly skeptical

I think an Interstate bridge would be an in-demand route for an upgraded US 41 Chicago-Nashville corridor, if US 41 (IN 63 where appropriate) could make it to Interstate standard, or at least a minimum of a Terre Haute Bypass and a freeway connection to the south end of the IL 394 Freeway/Expressway, but I am getting Fictional, and too high a toll would still have Long Distance/Freight traffic using the current “Free” I-57/I-24 route or the “mostly Free” (depending on Chicagoland route and if shunpiking the I-65 bridge toll in Louisville) or comparably tolled I-80/94 <-> I-65 route
« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 02:59:43 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6039
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:02:12 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #948 on: June 24, 2019, 03:41:27 PM »

If/when I-69 into Memphis, TN is completed, will there even be much of a time/mileage benefit Indy <-> Memphis via I-69 vs I-70<->I-57<->I-55?

And if/when MO&AR get the “missing” extended I-57 section built (Walnut Ridge<->Poplar Bluff) that makes I-57 not just a St Louis Bypass but also a Memphis Bypass, there is no way I-69 has any advantage to Texas-bound traffic, and would be questionable if it would even save time/miles if/when AR&LA (and a Mississippi River Bridge) get their sections of I-69 constructed

I assume any Tolling study has accounted for this. Maybe I’m overly skeptical

I think an Interstate bridge would be an in-demand route for an upgraded US 41 Chicago-Nashville corridor, if US 41 (IN 63 where appropriate) could make it to Interstate standard, or at least a minimum of a Terre Haute Bypass and a freeway connection to the south end of the IL 394 Freeway/Expressway, but I am getting Fictional, and too high a toll would still have Long Distance/Freight traffic using the current “Free” I-57/I-24 route or the “mostly Free” (depending on Chicagoland route and if shunpiking the I-65 bridge toll in Louisville) or comparably tolled I-80/94 <-> I-65 route

Intriguing observations -- and quite prescient if TX completes its I-69/369 composite corridor from Houston to I-30, and the I-57 MO/AR extension is built, that almost obviates the center section of I-69 between Shreveport & Memphis, since the major drawback to the longstanding existing route -- the increasingly congested I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis -- is effectively bypassed in regards to Houston to the Great Lakes region traffic, with the I-57/I-70 corridor via Effingham, IL subbing in for the entire Indy-Memphis section of I-69 -- which now focuses long-distance traffic on Memphis origins & destinations, not those in TX; they have an equally efficient path elsewhere -- with the advantage of not traversing much in the way of large metro chokepoints (Terre Haute and Little Rock being the most substantial along that corridor).  The efforts to complete the northern I-69 Indy-Memphis segment will be, at least near/medium-term, in provision of benefit to traffic heading from Indiana to Memphis and possibly the New Orleans area via I-55.  To be fair, the latter routing does bypass Louisville, Nashville, and possibly the three Alabama metro areas arrayed along I-65 (Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile), and there is always I-269 as a Memphis bypass, though a little plagued with backtracking regarding the northern E-W section now signed MS 385.  Even with Ohio River tolling, I-69 will, in all likelihood, provide a more efficient (and to truckers, cost-effective when time is calculated into the equation) path to the lower Mississippi River commercial areas than is currently available.  But Texas access?  Not so much; the center I-69 segment will be just another alternative, not appreciably better than its competition.  It might eventually be built -- but it'll be local southern AR interests pressing for its development, not hordes of truckers looking for a better route from Houston to the Great Lakes. 

When considering the whole of the I-69 project, remember that the most vehement backers were concentrated in Indiana and Texas; the former just wanted to see the Evansville area connected (from two directions if possible) by an Interstate corridor, and the latter had two goals (outlined extensively in several Mid-South threads):  providing an Interstate outlet from Houston to the northeast (I-30 and, to a lesser extent, I-20 & I-49) and developing a South TX network covering most of the border crossings and funneling such to Houston.  In fits and pieces, they're well on their way to getting those goals achieved.  The center section was simply a vehicle so that the backers of the project could claim national rather than regional benefits for the whole corridor by tying the two more "vital" segments together, bringing some rural interests on board as well.  Unfortunately, the three states through which that segment travel are three that are perennially needing to scrounge money for projects -- and other projects have taken precedence over a I-69 section promising relatively little in the way of traffic or significant benefits -- but with a project feature -- the Great River Bridge -- whose construction cost will dwarf any other particular part of the entire corridor, and which the involved states can ill afford.   Hardly an undertaking that any of the jurisdictions in question are in any hurry to expedite! 

But the Indy-Memphis section -- a very long "SIU" if you will, will eventually be completed; it does have regional value -- and most of it is built or well under way.  And a tolled I-69 Ohio River bridge will be an integral part of it, regardless of how the local tolling issue shakes out; except for some reticence on the part of TN, the states and other parties involved with that corridor segment have gone "all in".     
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 246
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 12:31:55 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #949 on: June 25, 2019, 01:15:06 PM »

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but with Arkansas and Mississippi budgetary concerns, I don't know why (short of cancelling their proposals), why they don't simply use more of what they have and incorporate the current Greenville MS bridge of US-82 for the I-69 crossing and then Arkansas can shoot it across US-82 and then down US-425 to Louisiana and then LA can have it meet up with I-20 near Monroe and twin to Shreveport.  Arkansas would make out like a bandit since they wouldn't have to fund the Great River Bridge, and I-69 will incorporate some of the US-82 project that they want to do across the state.  Mississippi would have to pay a little more for upgrading US-61, but again, that bridge wouldn't have to be built, nor the approaches.
Logged

 


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.