Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tdindy88]

Now all you need is I-69 and US-24.

And SR 37

Also, I am curious, while on this subject, with all this talk about investment in the I-69 bridge, is it still slated to be a toll bridge? I'm guessing that it probably still is, but some of these stories had me a little hopeful.

[Life in Paradise]

[/quote]
Also, I am curious, while on this subject, with all this talk about investment in the I-69 bridge, is it still slated to be a toll bridge? I'm guessing that it probably still is, but some of these stories had me a little hopeful.
[/quote]

I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

[sparker]

I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

IIRC, the concept of the I-69 bridge being anything but a tolled facility was discarded early in the development phase; the realities of the size and scope of the project set in almost immediately.  It appears that the current discussions center around what to do with the remaining US 41 crossing(s) and how to still provide local service (and minimizing controversy) but still discourage "shunpiking" of the new I-69 bridge -- in short, let through traffic be subject to tolling, but still provide the free local river crossing long established while making it inconvenient for said through traffic to efficiently utilize the old bridge(s).   

[seicer]

There are painting projects scheduled for both US 41 spans. Additionally, the Governor has indicated that the project could not move forward without tolls.

[edwaleni]

I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

IIRC, the concept of the I-69 bridge being anything but a tolled facility was discarded early in the development phase; the realities of the size and scope of the project set in almost immediately.  It appears that the current discussions center around what to do with the remaining US 41 crossing(s) and how to still provide local service (and minimizing controversy) but still discourage "shunpiking" of the new I-69 bridge -- in short, let through traffic be subject to tolling, but still provide the free local river crossing long established while making it inconvenient for said through traffic to efficiently utilize the old bridge(s).   

The plan for the new Shands Bridge in Florida (which will be tolled), will have an express non-tolled on/off ramp for local traffic only. However, it doesn't have any local river crossing competition for several miles.

I think I commented on this before, but have the new Ohio River toll bridge have the same express free on/off ramps, and tear down one of the US-41 spans, preferably the older 1936 one.

Capacity will then be spread out over a more reasonable distance where it eliminates the "one or the other" argument.

[edwaleni]

Picked up from over at the Kentucky thread.

2-1088.20 | C | FY 2022-25 | $267 million: Construct the portion of I-69 Ohio River Bridge project from KY 425/Henderson Bypass to US 60
2-1088.50 | C | FY 2025 | $73.4 million: Work with INDOT to develop a $1.1 billion bi-state package to construct the I-69 Ohio River Bridge between US60 and I-69 in Evansville

[rte66man]

Picked up from over at the Kentucky thread.

2-1088.20 | C | FY 2022-25 | $267 million: Construct the portion of I-69 Ohio River Bridge project from KY 425/Henderson Bypass to US 60

At least this part serves some use even if it's another 20 years before the bridge gets built. Glad to see KYTC is moving forward on this.

[SSR_317]

I haven't seen that it could be anything other than a toll bridge.  I don't see where they would get the money otherwise.

IIRC, the concept of the I-69 bridge being anything but a tolled facility was discarded early in the development phase; the realities of the size and scope of the project set in almost immediately.  It appears that the current discussions center around what to do with the remaining US 41 crossing(s) and how to still provide local service (and minimizing controversy) but still discourage "shunpiking" of the new I-69 bridge -- in short, let through traffic be subject to tolling, but still provide the free local river crossing long established while making it inconvenient for said through traffic to efficiently utilize the old bridge(s).   

The plan for the new Shands Bridge in Florida (which will be tolled), will have an express non-tolled on/off ramp for local traffic only. However, it doesn't have any local river crossing competition for several miles.

I think I commented on this before, but have the new Ohio River toll bridge have the same express free on/off ramps, and tear down one of the US-41 spans, preferably the older 1936 one.

Capacity will then be spread out over a more reasonable distance where it eliminates the "one or the other" argument.

The last time I read the ORX website (about a month ago), it has already been determined that the older US 41 bridge will stay, and that the newer one will be torn down. Counterintuitive, unless you note they had studied both existing crossings and determined that the long-term maintenance costs were equal for both structures but that the historical value of the newer bridge was negligible. Thus, the 1938 spans will stay and be renovated for 2-way local traffic.

As far as I can tell, no decision has yet been reached weather or not to toll the US 41 crossing along with the new one I-69 or not, but regardless of that decision the interstate bridge will sadly have electronic tolls imposed on it from the beginning.

[hbelkins]

I still think it's a really dumb decision to tear down one of the existing bridges.

[Revive 755]

The last time I read the ORX website (about a month ago), it has already been determined that the older US 41 bridge will stay, and that the newer one will be torn down. Counterintuitive, unless you note they had studied both existing crossings and determined that the long-term maintenance costs were equal for both structures but that the historical value of the newer bridge was negligible. Thus, the 1938 spans will stay and be renovated for 2-way local traffic.

Like most people would be able to tell the difference between the older and newer bridge.  The deck truss spans won't even be visible to most.

Are they taking into account how much more it might cost to rehab the older bridge?  It will probably loose some of its historic look if any of the truss members have to be replaced - unless extra effort (and cost) is made to match the look of the current truss members.  Possible example/reference would be the truss replacement for the WB I-70/Blanchette Bridge over the Missouri River near St. Louis:
Original truss
New truss

EDIT:
Looking over the volume projections from the early 2019 exhibits, the US 41 crossing is shown to still have 22,500 or 26,400 vehicles per day, depending upon the alternative.  This is probably more than should be on a two lane crossing, and high enough I could see some nasty head on crashes popping up.  Could be even more issues since neither US 41 bridge has shoulders.  Wondering if this could become a potential liability issue for Kentucky?

[edwaleni]

I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

[Life in Paradise]

I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

Even a 7.0 or so quake would probably damage those bridges enough to shut them down at least for awhile, let alone a 8.0 New Madrid type event.

[ilpt4u]

I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

Even a 7.0 or so quake would probably damage those bridges enough to shut them down at least for awhile, let alone a 8.0 New Madrid type event.

I have a feeling there will be many troubled bridges across SE MO, W KY, SoIL, SW IN, NE AR, etc when the next major New Madrid Quake hits

Hopefully I am wrong, tho

[edwaleni]

I am sympathetic to keeping older bridges around for historical purposes, but to continue to rely on these as a major arterial is running the risk of 1 New Madrid event that *will* topple them over.

Even a 7.0 or so quake would probably damage those bridges enough to shut them down at least for awhile, let alone a 8.0 New Madrid type event.

I have a feeling there will be many troubled bridges across SE MO, W KY, SoIL, SW IN, NE AR, etc when the next major New Madrid Quake hits

Hopefully I am wrong, tho

By "New Madrid event", I wasn't thinking a big one necessarily like 1792, more like between a 4 and 6. I agree an 8 would have more issues in the region than just bridges.  Something that would wobble them off their stands. And being so close together, its possible one would topple on the other one. These weren't designed for a large degree of seismic activity, whereas a new bridge would have more resistance by design.

Deeper footings, flexible cable stayed decks instead of the rigid trusses used on them today.

I guess the point I was making is that keeping just one and not both of the old spans reduces the level of risk when that seismic event takes place.

[mrose]

I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.

[ilpt4u]

I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.

I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

[Verlanka]

By "New Madrid event", I wasn't thinking a big one necessarily like 1812

FIFY

[seicer]

Besides the seismic shaking, the ground could very well liquefy, causing the piers and foundations to simply give way or sink.

[edwaleni]

Besides the seismic shaking, the ground could very well liquefy, causing the piers and foundations to simply give way or sink.

Yes, this is what happened in eastern Arkansas in *1812* (thanks @Verlanka). Hence the St Francis "Sunken Lands" NWA.

[mrose]

I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.

I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

Yes, the two US 60 bridges.

I know one is supposed to be replaced soon though.

[hbelkins]

I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.

I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

Yes, the two US 60 bridges.

I know one is supposed to be replaced soon though.

There are preliminary discussions on replacing the Ohio River bridge, although I'm not sure which state is taking the lead.

[edwaleni]

I'd expect one or both of the Cairo bridges to be in big trouble.

I'm assuming the new one when it gets built will account for such seismic events.

I assume you are referring to the US 60/62/51 Bridges...and not including the I-57 bridge just north of Cairo

Yes, the two US 60 bridges.

I know one is supposed to be replaced soon though.

There are preliminary discussions on replacing the Ohio River bridge, although I'm not sure which state is taking the lead.

KDOT is the lead agency to replace the Cairo Bridge.  IDOT has provided their funding in their budgets.  It's currently in EIS and engineering.

[mgk920]

A little tidbit on progress on the new crossing:

https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/plans-moving-forward-for-ohio-river-bridge/

Mike

[GreenLanternCorps]

Posting the map from that video...

https://i69ohiorivercrossing.com/updated-maps/deis-maps/

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Thanks!  Most legible & straightforward map of the project I've seen to date!  I take it the double white lines over the swampy area north of the main span indicate an additional bridge structure as well.