AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 Ohio River Bridge  (Read 202446 times)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8543
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:10:49 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #800 on: July 29, 2017, 06:47:21 PM »

What is not stated in the narrative to this point are some problems with West Option 1 and 2.  Both of these options call for removal of the the current twin bridges, which would save future maintenance cost, but in doing so would complicate matters:
1.  By removing the current bridges for a replacement bridge you again limit the Evansville/Henderson area to on crossing, and that could cause problems when accidents occur, maintenance, etc.
2.  When I-69 is completed to Indianapolis (we even may see this somewhat when the road is completed to Martinsville), traffic will increase on the north/south corridor here, and the bridge should be wide enough for three lanes in each direction, but that is not what they are planning.  This would be especially important if the other bridges are removed.
3.  Even if only one bridge is kept of the current (in the case of the central corridor), you do have a free option to cross the river for current residents.  I would think Henderson area residence would be especially angry since if they work in Evansville, they would have to budget $1000 or more a year for the round trip just to go to work (based on $2.00 or so each way).


Replying a week late, but regarding your #2, both of the West Corridor alignments do have 3 lanes in each direction on the river bridge.
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 95
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:20:10 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #801 on: July 30, 2017, 04:17:20 PM »

I saw that description of the west bridges a couple of days after I made the post.  Getting rid of both of the existing bridges will rid the area of a free crossing (other than Owensboro-30 miles or Shawneetown-50 miles) and no emergency crossing if the new bridges have a major incident.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8350
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 08:33:13 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #802 on: July 30, 2017, 05:33:24 PM »

I don't recall seeing anything saying that they had made the decision to toll the I-69 bridge, only that they were considering the option.  Has something changed?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Captain Jack

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 173
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 11:23:14 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #803 on: July 30, 2017, 11:05:07 PM »

i actually don't think any ohio river bridge is in indiana, the state line is the shore of the ohio river, dating back to the nw territory.  it zig-zags a lot so it's not perfect, but most of the approaches are in indiana on the northern side, none of the 41 bridges are though. 
I'd consider the elevated parts of the approaches to be part of the bridge, so most of them actually do have part of the bridge over Indiana.

The state line is the low-water mark on the north side of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792, when Kentucky became a state. Kentucky and Indiana do have maintenance agreements on the bridges -- Kentucky maintains some and Indiana maintains others. But the US 41 bridges are entirely in Kentucky because the course of the river changed significantly. I don't know when that occurred, but the fact remains that you don't cross the state line when you cross one of those bridges.

it must have change a lot since then, there's a road in evansville called riverside drive (not the piece that actually is near the shore) that is no where near the ohio.

Riverside Drive runs along the river through the downtown area. It never ran along the river after that. Riverside Drive is where it is going SE from downtown because most of the land south of it to the river is in the flood plain. Supposedly the 1792 mark runs just south and parallel to Waterworks Road.
Logged

Life in Paradise

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 95
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 09:20:10 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #804 on: July 31, 2017, 09:03:18 AM »

I don't recall seeing anything saying that they had made the decision to toll the I-69 bridge, only that they were considering the option.  Has something changed?

Almost all discussions locally involve tolling, since it is thought that a revenue stream will be needed to pay for the bridge rather than drain both state's general road funds.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:09 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #805 on: July 31, 2017, 02:18:49 PM »

I don't recall seeing anything saying that they had made the decision to toll the I-69 bridge, only that they were considering the option.  Has something changed?

Almost all discussions locally involve tolling, since it is thought that a revenue stream will be needed to pay for the bridge rather than drain both state's general road funds.

That raises the question:  if the new-bridge option selected involves eliminating the US 41 bridges -- and tolls were part of the package -- how would local usage, which heretofore has been free -- be addressed?  My guess would be that local residents would either be given cards or devices which allowed free passage -- or at least a steeply discounted rate!  Of course, if the central option is chosen -- which would leave at least one of the existing bridges intact -- the point would be moot -- although that also provides a known-quantity routing for shunpiking.  If that situation were to come about, I'd venture that the signals through Henderson would be reset to what is termed "traffic calming" (although the "calm" syllable is often colloquially replaced with another 4-letter word by drivers!) to render through passage highly inefficient.  It'll be interesting to see how all these factors play out in the bridge alignment decision.
Logged

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 311
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 11:41:47 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #806 on: August 11, 2017, 10:55:56 AM »

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/central-corridor-is-top-choice-in-i-69-ohio-river-crossing/786692348

In shocking news, Bridgelink recommended to the I-69 Bridges project manager that they pick the central corridor (new bridge) plan that they originally came up with.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2308
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 04:20:31 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #807 on: August 11, 2017, 11:04:04 AM »

central 1 benefits henderson the most, i bet that's the one they pick.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:09 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #808 on: August 11, 2017, 04:48:07 PM »

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/central-corridor-is-top-choice-in-i-69-ohio-river-crossing/786692348

In shocking news, Bridgelink recommended to the I-69 Bridges project manager that they pick the central corridor (new bridge) plan that they originally came up with.
central 1 benefits henderson the most, i bet that's the one they pick.

It's likely that the option that would be favored on both sides of the river would be the one that results in two individual crossings -- the new I-69 bridge and the existing US 41 structure -- even if only one of the original twin bridges is retained.  That would provide for some degree of separation of local and through traffic as well as redundancy in case of congestion or incidents impairing either crossing. 
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8350
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 08:33:13 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #809 on: August 11, 2017, 06:11:00 PM »

The article says the central option "will cut down on the number of miles of new terrain needed", but don't the west corridors have fewer new terrain miles?  The east options and central 2 were already eliminated from consideration.

The central option is certainly less disruptive to Henderson, though, and no doubt has less expensive ROW despite having more mileage.

Hopefully Kentucky can put US 41 back where it belongs.  That US 41/KY 425/KY 2084 change is awkward as hell.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 974
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:57:36 AM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #810 on: August 11, 2017, 07:56:04 PM »

The article says the central option "will cut down on the number of miles of new terrain needed", but don't the west corridors have fewer new terrain miles?  The east options and central 2 were already eliminated from consideration.

The reporter probably paraphrased the press release wrong. It says Central Corridor 1 is "the shortest corridor, resulting in the least amount of new roadway. It has considerable impacts to farmland, wetlands and forested habitat, but would impact the fewest residences and no businesses."
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8350
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 08:33:13 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #811 on: August 12, 2017, 01:10:19 PM »

I guess I don't see how Central 1 can be "the least amount of new roadway" of the three remaining corridors.  It's 8.5 miles from where it diverges from US 41 to exit 3 in Indiana, of which 8 miles are new terrain construction and 0.5 miles are former I-164.  The west corridors are 9.9 miles between these points, but include 1.4 miles of existing US 41 to Henderson, 2.9 miles of existing US 41 across the Ohio River (albeit likely with replacing the bridges), and 2.3 miles of former I-164, 6.6 miles of existing roadway in total, and so only have 3.3 miles of new terrain construction.  Even if you exclude the part of US 41 near the Ohio River (which will need upgrading), it's only 6.2 miles of construction.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2442
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: October 16, 2017, 10:39:09 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #812 on: August 12, 2017, 03:21:04 PM »

I guess I don't see how Central 1 can be "the least amount of new roadway" of the three remaining corridors.  It's 8.5 miles from where it diverges from US 41 to exit 3 in Indiana, of which 8 miles are new terrain construction and 0.5 miles are former I-164.  The west corridors are 9.9 miles between these points, but include 1.4 miles of existing US 41 to Henderson, 2.9 miles of existing US 41 across the Ohio River (albeit likely with replacing the bridges), and 2.3 miles of former I-164, 6.6 miles of existing roadway in total, and so only have 3.3 miles of new terrain construction.  Even if you exclude the part of US 41 near the Ohio River (which will need upgrading), it's only 6.2 miles of construction.

Re the "least amount of roadway":  They're either counting the frontage/slip roads that would be part of any in-town alignment next to the existing US 41, or they're simply engaging in wishful hyperbole!  In any case, it's clear that the regional consensus points toward Central 1; the other options are probably there to placate those who would prefer only a single crossing remain after the dust settles -- letting them know that their preferences are still in the mix. 
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3356
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: October 15, 2017, 02:21:41 PM
Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
« Reply #813 on: September 28, 2017, 02:30:07 PM »

central 1 benefits henderson the most, i bet that's the one they pick.

This article reports that Henderson city officials are indeed supporting Central 1:

Quote
Henderson City Commissioners and Mayor Steve Austin officially threw their support behind one of the three Interstate 69 Ohio River crossing routes currently being considered for Henderson.
After several landowners spoke up in favor of a route further east in the county, Central Corridor No. 2, which is no longer being considered by state and federal officials, the panel of commissioners and Austin voted unanimously on a resolution of support for Central Corridor 1 .....
"It's the least expensive, causes the least disruption in our community and third, it offers a redundancy of crossing the Ohio River the other two routes would leave only one crossing," Austin said. "Sometimes we have to make the best of the choices available to us."
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.