Talk:Purchase Parkway

message: Let's be clear here. Interstate 69 is not a done deal. There are many, many obstacles that many states will have to come through for this highway to even have a remote chance of being completed. Interstate 69 is still at least 5 to 6 years from even coming to the drawing board, since the Parkway system that it rides on will need major upgrades. All of this will cost an enormous amount of money, which the state has better use for, esp. since the Kennedy Interchange and the Ohio River Bridges project take a greater importance. One cannot claim that there are now I-69 shields, so it must be official, because those are "Future" labels and are not indicators that the highway will be compeleted in the future.
Until we see I-69 shields (with no "Future" labels) applied on the parkway as a whole, please save them for their own subheading under "Interstate 69 alignment".  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate 69 shield 

message: The Purchase Parkway opened to traffic in 1966.  With the exception of the 3-mile Mayfield Bypass segment and the Fulton Interchange (which were both constructed before the Parkway), the Purchase Parkway had been built to the Interstate highway standards that existed in 1966.  However, in the 40 years since, standards for Interstate highways have become more stringent, and the Parkway does not meet the newer standards.
===Lack of Activity on Upgrades===
The previous poster mentioned that the State of Kentucky has placed upgrading the Purchase Parkway fairly low on its priority list.  However, a logical approach to upgrading the Purchase Parkway would be performing the upgrades in segments when the existing pavement reaches the end of its life cycle.  In addition to resurfacing Parkway segments, the State of Kentucky can take advantage of the project to include lengthening ramps at interchanges and replacing bridges and overpasses within the project limits, bringing that particular segment of Parkway up to Interstate standards.
The greatest amount of work will be on the Mayfield Bypass segment and the Fulton Interchange near the Tennessee border--these two areas will likely have to be completely rebuilt to Interstate standards, while upgrades on the remaining segments could be performed during periodic resurfacing and bridge rehabilitation projects.  
It would be highly illogical--and wasteful--to construct I-69 over new terrain through Kentucky, since the route is adequately served by the parkways.  Additionally, routing I-69 over the Parkway system means Kentucky will avoid years of costly environmental studies required for a new terrain route. Aside from the substandard condition of the parkways, the lack of a connection to any other Interstate highways is also keeping Kentucky from installing I-69 signs for the time being.  I-69 signs may not be erected in Kentucky until I-69 is extended south from Indianapolis and the new Ohio River bridges east of Evansville are built.
=== Exit and Mileage Changes ===
Each parkway I-69 will be routed over has its own mileage and exit numbering.  That means that Kentucky will also have to reste mileposts and renumber exits on the parkways to reflect I-69 mileage and exit numbering in the state.
: Well, numerous upgrades would be needed. Shoulders would need widening from 10 to 12 feet, bridge heights would need to be increased (no grandfathering here), clear widths would need expanding or protecting with guardrails or cable-barriers, and interchange improvements. Of course they will need new exit numbers, but that is relatively minimal.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on Upgrading the Purchase Parkway

message: Each parkway I-69 will be routed over has its own mileage and exit numbering.  That means that Kentucky will also have to reste mileposts and renumber exits on the parkways to reflect I-69 mileage and exit numbering in the state.
: Well, numerous upgrades would be needed. Shoulders would need widening from 10 to 12 feet, bridge heights would need to be increased (no grandfathering here), clear widths would need expanding or protecting with guardrails or cable-barriers, and interchange improvements. Of course they will need new exit numbers, but that is relatively minimal.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit and Mileage Changes 

message: If it has been written into law that I-69 will be routed over the Purchase Parkway, why are they waiting until the road is upgraded to Interstate stnadards?  I'm from New York, and we have a lot of Interstate highways that were built in the 1940s, and come nowhere close to Interstate standards.  They weren't at Interstate standards in 1956, but Interstate highway shields were erected along these roads, with the stipulation that they would be upgraded to Interstate standards within X number of years.  For whatever reason--lawsuits, environmental issues, etc--these "Interstate" highways were not upgraded as of yet, but have been allowed to retain their Interstate designation.
My point being here, if it has been written into law that I-69 will be routed over the Purchase Parkway, why are the FHWA and Kentucky waiting until upgrades are completed before applying the I-69 designation?  If the road is already a fully controlled-access expressway, albeit not to Interstates standards, why can't I-69 signs go up, with the stipulation that the road be upgraded to Interstate standards within X number of years, as was done on many substandard "Interstate" expressways in New York?  Is it because of a lack of connection to other Interstate highways or states?  Could it be beacuse Kentucky is broke and the Federal government diverted I-69 money to fund Bush's war in Iraq? Or is it just a problem with lack of motivation on the part of Kentucky and the FHWA to perform the upgrades, which could be done in five years or less?
:What would be the point exactly?  It's not like I-69 is complete everywhere else and Kentucky is the only incomplete portion.  I could see them doing that if Indiana and Tennessee both finish their portions for continuity reasons.  The Kentucky parkways are pretty well travelled to begin with, adding the interstate designation wouldn't really affect much.  You would end up with an interstate that doesn't connect to anything, you would have to go through surface streets at both ends to get back on the interstate system.  --Holderca1 talk 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thought about applying the I-69 designation to the Parkway

message: Since I-69 has now been designated along the parkway, shouldn't the parkway be former? or we could just move it North of I-24...
--EBGamingWikitalk 13:32, 2 December 2015 (EDT)
:If the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is still designating the parkway along its pre-I-69 length, then we should not change anything. As in all things, we follow what the sources say, not what we think they should be. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I think this article should be merged with I-69, when said route is designated along the parkway. The separate, small portion North of I-24 should have its own page according to its route number. EBGamingWiki (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Interstate 69 (Kentucky)