AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 Ohio River Bridge  (Read 252022 times)

codyg1985

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2063
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: November 14, 2019, 04:11:03 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2012, 06:59:14 AM »

This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge:
(1) get I-69 to be designated a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal highway reauthorization bill, (2) have the Federal Highway Administration appoint a national Interstate 69 Project Manager, (3) maintain that the I-69 Ohio River crossing is important in both regional and national terms, (4) emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges, as well as the fact that they are neither tornado nor earthquake proof, and (5) emphasize the dramatic, negative impact that the loss of one or both of the US 41 bridges would have on the regional economy. Apparently, the thinking is that all of the above would make the I-69 Ohio River Bridge a high priority for a FHWA I-69 Project Manager.

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

Maybe I-49 should be handled in this way, too.
Logged
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Rick Powell

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 384
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 11:25:11 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2012, 05:15:18 PM »

Having a dedicated FHWA Project Manager is a legitimate management strategy and has been used on several projects in the past.  On a bi-state project either a PM is appointed and works with both states' FHWA staff; or, one of the state FHWA divisions takes it on with its regular staff as the lead, with the other state a FHWA cooperating partner.
Logged

ShawnP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 747
  • Last Login: December 30, 2018, 12:48:31 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2012, 09:21:22 AM »

If having a FHWA Project Manager speeds it up all the better. Hopefully by 2015 the drive is ready.
Logged

sr641

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 137
  • Location: Terre Haute, Indiana
  • Last Login: July 16, 2012, 10:31:58 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2012, 11:48:24 AM »

I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time
Logged
Isaac

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12802
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:22 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2012, 08:33:33 PM »

I would never drive on the i69 toll bridge. Id take the old us 41 one evey time

we dont care because you dont use punctuation or grammer

truejd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 12:35:20 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2012, 10:59:18 PM »

The correct spelling is "grammar".
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12802
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:22 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2012, 11:06:00 PM »

The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point

Hot Rod Hootenanny

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1876
  • Diplomat of Solid Sound

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Middle of Nowhere, Ohio
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 09:10:00 PM
    • 20th Century roadfan material
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2012, 10:26:42 PM »

The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts
Logged
SAVE AAROADS!! ONLY TALK ABOUT ROADS!

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2012, 02:15:44 AM »

The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts

Speaking of hammering home a point, Evansville Mayor Lloyd Winnecke wants leaders in both Evansville, Indiana and Henderson, Kentucky to repeatedly stress the importance of the I-69 Ohio River Bridge to their respective congressional delegations in order to eventually get federal money/assistance to make the bridge a reality:

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

In other words, work like crazy on both fronts to get the Indiana and Kentucky delegations to push hard for the bridge.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 10:28:49 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3470
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:01:55 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2012, 12:40:27 PM »

The correct spelling is "grammar".
that was my point
There were no points .... in your posts

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

Mike
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13902
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 06:50:17 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #35 on: May 19, 2012, 12:42:22 PM »

in less your a greengrocer
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

sr641

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 137
  • Location: Terre Haute, Indiana
  • Last Login: July 16, 2012, 10:31:58 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #36 on: May 20, 2012, 10:23:16 AM »

I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.
Logged
Isaac

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10485
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 09:04:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #37 on: May 20, 2012, 10:43:43 AM »

The bridge isn't to interstate standards.  And though it's on the level where I would say "just use it and not care", I don't think the FHWA agrees with me.  Plus the road on either side is just a surface street, and it would probably cost more to upgrade than to build a new alignment.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

adt1982

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 159
  • Location: Litchfield, IL
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 08:00:30 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #38 on: May 20, 2012, 02:51:13 PM »

I would still never drve on the I69 toll bridge over the Ohio River. They should just use the US 41 bridge.
Oh, I don't know.  It might be nice to have a bridge that actually has shoulders and meets interstate standards.
Logged

RoadWarrior56

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 422
  • Last Login: Today at 06:23:23 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #39 on: May 20, 2012, 03:13:23 PM »

Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13691
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 02:52:51 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2012, 12:26:01 AM »

Believe me, as somebody who lived in Evansville for many years and still has family connections there, they need a second crossing very badly, even if I-69 weren't built, they still need another crossing.

I drove across the bridges when they had the 3+1 configuration going for repairs a few years ago. The backups on both sides of the bridge were lengthy, even though there were still four lanes available for travel. Anytime there is some sort of incident on the bridge or on either side, especially the south side, I hear traffic gets dog-knotted.
Logged

tdindy88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1416
  • Last Login: Today at 07:22:56 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2012, 09:38:14 AM »

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
Logged

mukade

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: November 12, 2016, 11:37:18 PM
    • Highway Explorer
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2012, 12:08:07 PM »

I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

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

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.
Logged

sd72667

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19
  • Last Login: September 01, 2018, 03:20:26 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2012, 04:48:01 PM »

I would favor I-164 becoming I-69 to the point where the new terrain road connecting to the bridge veers south. From that point west to US 41, it could be marked as "TO I-69", and US 41 could also be marked the same for that matter. When/if the new bridge is built, I agree something like I-169 would work nicely for the 2-3 miles left over. It jus needs to not duplicate one of the numbers kentucky already has planned.

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

What exists today around Henderson is a Breezewood situation with long backups at certain times of the day. The proposed I-69 connector on the Kentucky side from the existing Pennyrile to the new bridge seems like it will be pretty long. I wonder how long this will take to be built.
I think once the link from EV to Bloominton is open, there will be more movement to get a bridge finished right around the Green River Rd exit to the south. I'm sure they will obviously stay west where the Green River flows into the Ohio River. After looking at Google Maps, it's a straight shot to the Pennyrile from I-164, almost all farm fields. I hope it will be finished by the time Bloomington-Indy is finished.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12802
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:22 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2012, 08:53:04 PM »

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.

mukade

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: November 12, 2016, 11:37:18 PM
    • Highway Explorer
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2012, 04:33:41 AM »

Back in the 1970s when many Interstates were still being built, some states liberally signed the gaps with "TO I-xx" (where that was equal to or was the primary designation). The entire stretch of I-69 from Indy to Bloomington and from Evansville to Madisonville could be signed that way. For that matter, it could be signed as such down to Memphis.

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

If that is not allowed, then I can see the argument for leaving I-164 as is, but am still not convinced a long spur to the north designated I-69 and a shorter spur to the south marked as I-164 is any better than the entire 115 miles or so having the same number.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 04:41:42 AM by mukade »
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10485
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: November 19, 2019, 09:04:06 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2012, 05:31:43 PM »

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12802
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:25:22 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2012, 07:50:28 PM »

On a side note, I had an interesting thought about I-164 through the Evansville area. What would you guys say to having that whole highway be renumbered to I-69 from US 41 up to I-64. I agree with most of the posters here about the US 41 bridge and the need for an I-69 bridge, but looking at the Louisville area and the decades it has now been on the Ohio River Bridges project there, it could be a while for the I-69 bridge to be built. So why not just have I-69 run down I-164 to a temporary end at Exit 0 at US 41. Once the actual bridge is built and connected into what is now I-164, then you convert the stretch to the west to I-169 or something like that, but the rest of the highway is already signposted I-69. Exit numbers may have to be changed, but as I've heard with the Natcher Parkway, that isn't too much of an issue.
I'm taking the opposite tack. Why bother converting I-164 now when I-69 still needs to be completed across Indiana and into Kentucky? Even when I-69 IN opens, until it links across the river, I-164 remains a stub on the system, and right now it's numbered as such. I wouldn't bother changing it over until it's ready to connect.
I assume the same reason I-181 became I-26.
But that's different, because there's no planned extension of the highway. In this case, the rest of I-69 is coming along soon anyway. You'll have to change all the signs to reflect that the route continues past Evansville. You'll have to change mile markers and exit numbers because the new route won't hook around in a J shape.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #48 on: June 23, 2012, 11:26:51 PM »

During yesterday's announcement about I-69 signs going up in Kentucky this fall, Gov. Beshear was asked about the Ohio River Bridge.  Basically, he provided no real news other than speculation about the creation of a new authority to figure out financing for the project:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/sep/01/no-headline---ev_i69/
Quote
... However, the governor couldn’t forecast when the toughest portion of Kentucky’s I-69 project — financing and building a bridge across the Ohio River between Henderson and Evansville, estimated a few years ago to cost $1.4 billion — will be completed or even begin.
Beshear said leaders in the Henderson-Evansville area likely will establish a special authority to develop a financing plan, as is already taking place for a planned pair of Ohio River bridges at Louisville ...
This letter from SW Indiana Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Matthew Meadors seems to set forth a game plan to obtaining the other 57% to 74% of the funding for the bridge ... emphasize the age of the US 41 twin bridges

In this opinion piece, representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:

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

The advocacy groups for the I-69 Ohio River Bridge seem to be pursuing a steady public relations campaign for construction of the bridge.  Both INDOT and KYTC still have a lot on their respective plates, but it does seem like now would be a good time to at least form a bi-state authority and begin the process for revisiting the environmental review process.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 11:34:06 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2012, 11:46:28 PM »

In this opinion piece, representatives from Hoosier Voices for I-69 and Chamber Leadership Initiatives for Northwestern Kentucky, in addition to emphasizing the age of the US 41 twin bridges, emphasize the increased traffic that the US 41 twin bridges will have to handle because of the progress made on I-69 in both Kentucky and Indiana:
Quote
The time to act is now. Hoosier Voices for I-69 and C-LINK encourage the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to continue work on forming the bi-state authority needed to construct the bridge and advance the appropriate studies necessary to gain federal approval.

David Dixon, editor of the Henderson Gleaner, seconds the call for creating the bi-state authority in this editorial. He also injects a sense of urgency to do so because of perceived competition for funding with the replacement for the Brent Spence bridge in the Cincinnati area:

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

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