Print

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

[Anthony_JK]

Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.

[hbelkins]

I'd say the tolls on the new I-69 bridge would be set at or below the rates for Louisville, because they aren't building two discrete spans and there won't be a tunnel under a historic property, which affected the cost for the Louisville project.

[Rick Powell]

Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.

The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

[sparker]

Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.

The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

IIRC, an inspection of the US 41 bridges would be taking place; the one deemed in better condition would be retained for two-way vehicular use, while the second would be taken out of service.  It hasn't been indicated if the unused bridge would be demolished -- and whether any demolition would be partial (the main span over the navigable channel would be the most likely to go), with the remainder used as a local pier (fishing, just sitting around, etc.) from one or both directions, with local assumption of maintenance.  Wouldn't be surprised if that decision is deferred until the final overall configuration is determined; complicating such matters would be the fact that the bridges are situated fully in the state of Kentucky.

[Life in Paradise]

Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.

The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

IIRC, an inspection of the US 41 bridges would be taking place; the one deemed in better condition would be retained for two-way vehicular use, while the second would be taken out of service.  It hasn't been indicated if the unused bridge would be demolished -- and whether any demolition would be partial (the main span over the navigable channel would be the most likely to go), with the remainder used as a local pier (fishing, just sitting around, etc.) from one or both directions, with local assumption of maintenance.  Wouldn't be surprised if that decision is deferred until the final overall configuration is determined; complicating such matters would be the fact that the bridges are situated fully in the state of Kentucky.

I would expect the older span would be the one that is removed from traffic (it will be getting closer and closer to 100 years by the time the new bridge is built).  I would also expect that if it is taken down, it will be fully removed.  It is way too high to be used by fishermen, etc.  They periodically have people threatening to jump from it now.  It would have more work to do if it was made for a pedestrian/bike bridge (such as a cage around the roadway).

[mgk920]

Here's my pet peeve: If they are going to attempt to drop tolls on the older US 41 bridge(s) once the I-69 bridge is completed, then why not keep both spans of the old US 41, or at least convert either one or both for local and pedestrian/bicycle access between Henderson and Evansville? I'd say that even if the Central Alternative was chosen, there still would be enough local traffic volume between the two cities to warrant keeping both spans open.

The logic would likely be, "we'll get the same traffic whether one or two bridges are left open, but we will only have one to maintain." Unless local traffic would horribly be congested on the single bridge...and even then, with a toll you would expect some trips to be discouraged that would be taken if there were no tolls.

IIRC, an inspection of the US 41 bridges would be taking place; the one deemed in better condition would be retained for two-way vehicular use, while the second would be taken out of service.  It hasn't been indicated if the unused bridge would be demolished -- and whether any demolition would be partial (the main span over the navigable channel would be the most likely to go), with the remainder used as a local pier (fishing, just sitting around, etc.) from one or both directions, with local assumption of maintenance.  Wouldn't be surprised if that decision is deferred until the final overall configuration is determined; complicating such matters would be the fact that the bridges are situated fully in the state of Kentucky.

I would expect the older span would be the one that is removed from traffic (it will be getting closer and closer to 100 years by the time the new bridge is built).  I would also expect that if it is taken down, it will be fully removed.  It is way too high to be used by fishermen, etc.  They periodically have people threatening to jump from it now.  It would have more work to do if it was made for a pedestrian/bike bridge (such as a cage around the roadway).

Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?

Mike

[hbelkins]

I wouldn't take it out of service immediately upon opening the new bridge. I'd keep it in use until the next major upkeep project came due (painting, redecking, etc.) and then close it.

[tdindy88]

Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

[NE2]

Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?

US 41 isn't a freeway, so yes, bikes are allowed.

[Captain Jack]

Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?

US 41 isn't a freeway, so yes, bikes are allowed.

They may be allowed, but I would highly advise against it.

[Life in Paradise]

Are there any pedestrian/bicycle facilities on existing US 41 there (ie, is it possible for a non-motorized anything to cross the river in that area)?

US 41 isn't a freeway, so yes, bikes are allowed.

They may be allowed, but I would highly advise against it.

There is no walkway on either of the bridges, and with the size of the bridge and the heavy traffic over it, you would be out of your mind to attempt it.  When they had races that used the bridge, they would close it off to traffic for a short period of time (one side).

[silverback1065]

the old 41 bridge will be a pedestrian bridge, i thought that was what was always going to happen

[sparker]

the old 41 bridge will be a pedestrian bridge, i thought that was what was always going to happen

This is the first I've heard of that; all information to date has indicated that with 2 of the 3 I-69 alternatives still under consideration, a single US 41 bridge will be retained for two-way vehicular traffic (the 3rd option functionally replaces both US 41 bridges with a single 6-lane I-69 structure).  While there may be talk in some quarters about converting any remaining bridge to a pedestrian/bicycle-only facility, no formal plans to do so are forthcoming.   

[Rick Powell]

Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.

[2trailertrucker]

Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.

The East End Bridge in Louisville ( although it is not an interstate..yet) has a pedestrian crossing on the southbound side of the bridge. I went by there and there where quite a few people walking and biking it.

[mgk920]

Only problem with that might be giving those in Henderson false hope that there will always be a four-lane free alternative as you keep both bridges open. Better to cut them off from the start, get them used to the two-lane option from the beginning.

I wonder in any case if there will be a temporary time when the I-69 bridge will be free so that they can work on the US 41 bridges, do what they need to do and reconfigure the highway to fit the new arrangement. When that is all finished then they start the tolls on the I-69 bridge.

As for the pedestrian stuff, would a set up along the new I-69 bridge (similar to what was done with the East End Bridge) work if they don't want to preserve one of the old bridges. I suppose being out of the way of both Evansville and Henderson might work against this idea. Still I'm curious.

Rare are Interstate bridges with a separated pedestrian walkway on them, but a few exist. I-494 in Mendota Heights, MN over the Minnesota River. The cost of providing such a walkway would be substantial, so it would be desirable to have a reasonable amount of demand for it, and it would likely attract more bicyclists than pedestrians for that length of a trip.

https://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pages/mn02.html

I have also been involved in studies that propose attaching an external walkway to an existing truss bridge, but many times they are cost prohibitive to retro-fit, with supporting the weight cantilevered on the existing foundations, or building a whole new separate structure.

The East End Bridge in Louisville ( although it is not an interstate..yet) has a pedestrian crossing on the southbound side of the bridge. I went by there and there where quite a few people walking and biking it.

There is a pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the EB side of the I-94 Saint Croix River bridge on the Minnesota-Wisconsin state line (Hudson, WI), too.

Pedestrians and bicycles are also allowed on the main roadways of the I-79 Ohio River bridge near Pittsburgh, PA.

Mike

[thefro]

http://www.14news.com/story/38854689/tolling-will-happen-steel-tariffs-will-hurt-in-funding-i-69-orx

Tolling will happen and apparently they may also need tolls on the remaining US-41 bridge to pay for the new bridge (West Alternative 2 replaces the US-41 bridge completely with an I-69 bridge).

There's construction inflation and if the steel tariffs continue, that would also add to the price.

INDIANA AND KENTUCKY (WFIE) -
We're learning there will be tolling on the new I-69 Bridge. The Ohio River Crossing team's lead engineer consultant, Brian Aldridge, gave the update at a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting Thursday.

During Aldridge's presentation, it was discussed that two of the three options in "West Alternative 1" and "Central Alternative 1" may require additional tolling revenue from Highway 41.

Project officials say tolling alone wouldn't be enough to pay for the project. It's going to take multiple funding sources including federal and money from both states.

Aldridge also mentioned they haven't determined toll rates yet, but pinpointed Louisville's new east end bridge, using the RiverLink model as a close example of what modern tolling here could look like.

"We don't have those details yet, and we're not going to have those details until such time that a bi-state authority establishes and sets a business plan, and the actual tolling policies that we use for the project," Aldridge said.

Republican Vanderburgh County Commissioner Bruce Ungethiem questioned Aldridge at the podium, asking him if project officials have considered tolling other regional bridges to help with funding.

"Does anybody looking at this, understand that that's appropriate," Ungethiem continued, "that certain bridges will be tolled, and certain bridges won't be tolled?"

Aldridge answered, "again, in terms of this project, we're just trying to find the best way to pay for this project."

Ungetheim then said, "I don't think that will be fair to everybody."

Aldridge noted the estimated costs of all three alternate options, saying construction inflation is added on and increasing annually at least by 4%.

So, over the next 35 years with maintenance costs included and inflation, the West Alt. 1 route will total $1.8 billion; West Alt. 2 $1.6 billion; Central Alt 1 $1.4 billion.

Now, you have tariffs on steel to consider. As steel prices rise 10%, that would tack on a fat $150 million to a $1.5 billion price tag, for example.

"Steel is only one component of project costs," said Project Spokesperson, Mindy Peterson. An increase in prices wouldn’t add that percentage to the bottom line. It’s important to note that we are still years away from construction, and it’s early to speculate on the cost of materials.  The Project Team does monitor cost trends – whether talking about steel, fuel, cement, etc," Peterson clarified.

"There are ten or 11 bridges that go across the Ohio River between Indiana and Kentucky," Ungethiem said, "and if we're going to toll one of the bridges, we should take a look at all of the bridges and see if we should toll every other bridge, or certain bridges in each section, so everybody shares in the cost of putting a bridge between Indiana and Kentucky, regardless of where it's at."

The I-69 ORX project is a long process, so what's next?

Project officials say sometime this Fall we can expect the Bi-State Authority to narrow the three crossing options down to one. After that, there are even more public hearings to follow for your input.

I don't think Ungethiem will be able to get support for tolling nearly all the bridges between Indiana & Kentucky to pay for the new bridge.

[SSR_317]

Politicians always want to slap on tolls, which THEY can easily afford to pay. They exaggerate potential costs, and spread scare stories about inflation & the effects of tariffs (which hopefully will  be long gone by the time construction actually begins on the I-69 ORX project). But what they don't tell you is that private toll system operating companies will get rich from these tolling schemes, and that they are part of the legalized bribery scheme facilitated by the insane Citizens United decision. Privatization through these electronic tolling scams is nothing more than piratization (private profit at public expense). OF COURSE they want to impose tolls on bridges other than the new ones being built, to make it impossible for the driving public to avoid tolls. And when tolls are avoided, that hurts the profit margin of these private toll operators - which in turn likely lessens the amount of their future campaign contributions to the very pols who make the decisions about imposing such tolls the first place.

[hbelkins]

By the time construction starts on the bridge, domestic steel production should be on the increase to offset the tariff-laden imported steel -- which is the purpose of the tariffs in the first place. And a large amount of steel would only be needed if a truss bridge is built. A "plain" bridge with prestressed concrete beams would require a lot less steel than a truss bridge, or a bridge with steel beams.

[Rothman]

*sigh*

U.S. steel is so uncompetitive that even with the 25% tariffs, imports may still be considered cheaper.

https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2018/07/26/have-domestic-steel-prices-peaked/

[Revive 755]

By the time construction starts on the bridge, domestic steel production should be on the increase to offset the tariff-laden imported steel -- which is the purpose of the tariffs in the first place. And a large amount of steel would only be needed if a truss bridge is built. A "plain" bridge with prestressed concrete beams would require a lot less steel than a truss bridge, or a bridge with steel beams.

Still a decent amount of reinforcing steel in the piers no matter the bridge type, also in the foundations, particularly if they use H-piles or metal shells/pipe piles.

Based on the span length of the existing structures, I would guess the new bridge would be either an arch or cable-stayed design.  The former could need a lot of steel for the arch structure, the latter would need a decent amount for the cables and the reinforcement in the towers.

[Captain Jack]

Back to the pedestrian use of the older 41 span. I don't see enough of a potential use to justify this. Unlike Louisville or Cincinnati, where you have urban areas immediately on the banks opposite of each other, US 41 traverses several miles of uninhabitable river bottoms between Evansville and Henderson. You can take a leisurely stroll between Jeffersonville and Louisville, this would take planned hike. Even if you provided parking at Ellis Park, you would still have to go a considerable distance on the KY side to provide parking, somewhere near Audubon Park. With the remoteness and light use, I think you would run into the same problems St. Louis has with the Chain of Rocks Bridge...cars being broken into, and actual robberies on the bridge.

With lighter use, I think both spans can continue to serve vehicular traffic.

Regarding Bruce Ugethiem, he is completely out of his mind if he thinks Owensboro will allow tolling on the Blue Bridge, or Brookport-Paducah will go with it on the steel-bottomed US 45 span.

[hbelkins]

By the time construction starts on the bridge, domestic steel production should be on the increase to offset the tariff-laden imported steel -- which is the purpose of the tariffs in the first place. And a large amount of steel would only be needed if a truss bridge is built. A "plain" bridge with prestressed concrete beams would require a lot less steel than a truss bridge, or a bridge with steel beams.

Still a decent amount of reinforcing steel in the piers no matter the bridge type, also in the foundations, particularly if they use H-piles or metal shells/pipe piles.

Based on the span length of the existing structures, I would guess the new bridge would be either an arch or cable-stayed design.  The former could need a lot of steel for the arch structure, the latter would need a decent amount for the cables and the reinforcement in the towers.

Which brings up a thought I've always had -- why is the old bridge at St. Louis, the one that now carries I-64 but not I-70 -- so plain? How did they get by with it not being a truss bridge?

[jnewkirk77]

Back to the pedestrian use of the older 41 span. I don't see enough of a potential use to justify this. Unlike Louisville or Cincinnati, where you have urban areas immediately on the banks opposite of each other, US 41 traverses several miles of uninhabitable river bottoms between Evansville and Henderson. You can take a leisurely stroll between Jeffersonville and Louisville, this would take planned hike. Even if you provided parking at Ellis Park, you would still have to go a considerable distance on the KY side to provide parking, somewhere near Audubon Park. With the remoteness and light use, I think you would run into the same problems St. Louis has with the Chain of Rocks Bridge...cars being broken into, and actual robberies on the bridge.

With lighter use, I think both spans can continue to serve vehicular traffic.

Regarding Bruce Ugethiem, he is completely out of his mind if he thinks Owensboro will allow tolling on the Blue Bridge, or Brookport-Paducah will go with it on the steel-bottomed US 45 span.

If that's the best idea Ungethiem can come up with, it's little wonder he lost that primary race for State Rep. Sheesh!

[Revive 755]

Which brings up a thought I've always had -- why is the old bridge at St. Louis, the one that now carries I-64 but not I-70 -- so plain? How did they get by with it not being a truss bridge?

IIRC, partially due to not wanting a truss interfering with views of the Arch (although the MarArthur Bridge just south of the PSB already provides a blockage).

I think the PSB is also getting near the upper limit for girder spans (someone is more than welcome to disprove this).