News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Indy south split proposed rebuild, go low?

Started by monty, September 14, 2022, 08:58:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

monty

monty


silverback1065

#1
Quote from: monty on September 14, 2022, 08:58:30 PM
Interesting study of proposed Indy south split. Group lobbying to take the interchange lower instead of elevated. https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/indianapolis-group-lays-a-once-in-a-generation-plan-to-lower-the-interstate/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WISH-TV&fbclid=IwAR3x_YM-qiv8qw6WotoLgXz2_s8qFib3w-RABNHfNJ-nIK1Hm8pttlE6xi0

It's already depressed  :-D the whole freeway goes below grade for the south split, both 65 and 70. this would be a great cap candidate though. it could be like Columbus ohio.  (the interstates come in above grade but the interchange is below grade) i like how they propose something that's actually a good idea!  :-D

hotdogPi

I thought this was about forum regions at first...
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

peterj920

In Milwaukee the Mitchell Interchange was a similar interchange which was lowered with 3 cut and cover tunnels. The rebuild turned out and it would be great if Indy would try a similar design.

silverback1065

only barrier is obvious...money  :-D no way this happens any time soon anyway. i bet the environmental alone takes like 3-5 yrs.

Rothman

Quote from: 1 on September 14, 2022, 09:01:34 PM
I thought this was about forum regions at first...
You win the Internet for the day.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SSR_317

#6
Quote from: monty on September 14, 2022, 08:58:30 PM
Interesting study of proposed Indy south split. Group lobbying to take the interchange lower instead of elevated. https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/indianapolis-group-lays-a-once-in-a-generation-plan-to-lower-the-interstate/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WISH-TV&fbclid=IwAR3x_YM-qiv8qw6WotoLgXz2_s8qFib3w-RABNHfNJ-nIK1Hm8pttlE6xi0
I question this "private" group's motivations. Exactly who founded this group? Who belongs to it? And whom do they propose pay for what they are proposing? Exactly who would benefit from what they envision, should it be designed and constructed as they propose?

We likely won't get these answers from our local Indianapolis media, or their national "mainstream" counterparts either. This is how expensive boondoggles often begin, with taxpayers picking up the bloated tab, as usual.

silverback1065

Quote from: SSR_317 on September 24, 2022, 12:15:57 PM
Quote from: monty on September 14, 2022, 08:58:30 PM
Interesting study of proposed Indy south split. Group lobbying to take the interchange lower instead of elevated. https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/indianapolis-group-lays-a-once-in-a-generation-plan-to-lower-the-interstate/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WISH-TV&fbclid=IwAR3x_YM-qiv8qw6WotoLgXz2_s8qFib3w-RABNHfNJ-nIK1Hm8pttlE6xi0
I question this "private" group's motivations. Exactly who founded this group? Who belongs to it? And whom do they propose pay for what they are proposing? Exactly who would benefit from what they envision, should it be designed and constructed as they propose?

We likely won't get these answers from our local Indianapolis media, or their national "mainstream" counterparts either. This is how expensive boondoggles often begin, with taxpayers picking up the bloated tab, as usual.

Seems like mostly local people but who knows. and I think the area would benefit from a cap. I picture Columbus Ohio and KC. those cities have small areas of capped freeway and it really makes the area connect better and it adds more businesses on top of the freeway. I see that as a win for both. North Split area it makes no sense for other reasons. South Split is a good candidate imo. But cost is king and I don't see it happening because of that.

SSR_317

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 24, 2022, 04:04:09 PM
Seems like mostly local people but who knows. and I think the area would benefit from a cap. I picture Columbus Ohio and KC. those cities have small areas of capped freeway and it really makes the area connect better and it adds more businesses on top of the freeway. I see that as a win for both. North Split area it makes no sense for other reasons. South Split is a good candidate imo. But cost is king and I don't see it happening because of that.
Also, Reno has a small cap over one block of I-80 (between Virginia St & Center St), originally constructed to allow for a proposed casino that later failed before being built. There is now a Walgreens drug store (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5349643,-119.8136941,3a,75y,276.42h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smWnO18LXwhxDsogOVpw6iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and its parking lot occupying the site.

ITB


The Rethink Coalition on Wednesday revealed its proposed redesign of the I-65/I-70 inner loop in downtown Indianapolis. It's termed the "Recessed Concept." Check out Rethink's website here, and their proposals and renderings here, and here.

Great Lakes Roads

Quote from: ITB on December 06, 2023, 11:08:58 PM

The Rethink Coalition on Wednesday revealed its proposed redesign of the I-65/I-70 inner loop in downtown Indianapolis. It's termed the "Recessed Concept." Check out Rethink's website here, and their proposals and renderings here, and here.

All I am going to say is: good luck forwarding these plans to INDOT since they spent a lot of money on rebuilding the North Split interchange...

Plutonic Panda

Is this a real proposal or just a fantasy/wishful thinking type thing?

froggie

Looking at the players involved, I'd call it a "serious proposal but still wishful thinking"...

silverback1065

INDOT has already said that the North Split is a no go. They literally just rebuilt that as we all can see  :-D. and if you keep that in mind that essentially makes depressing the big bridge a no go. the south split can be done. The biggest problem with these types of groups is they come up with nice flashy ideas but in reality the cost projections they claim are never right and the benefits they claim are always meh or dubious. I will admit it would be cool to do it but I'm also a realist. I don't see INDOT doing this for many reasons. their renderings look cool though!

The Ghostbuster

The only changes I would make to the south split (besides adding additional lanes to Interstates 65 and 70), would be to make the 65/70 split have only right-handed exit and entrance ramps, and eliminate the northbound left-hand entrance ramp linking Virginia Ave. and Calvary St. with 65 North and 70 East.

Moose

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 02:19:12 PM
eliminate the northbound left-hand entrance ramp linking Virginia Ave. and Calvary St. with 65 North and 70 East.

Part of that never re opened, the oddball connector between Virginia Ave and Calvary is permanently blocked off, signs point you around the horn through the nearby intersection.

I think it was the source of some traffic problem there.

silverback1065

Quote from: Moose on December 07, 2023, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 02:19:12 PM
eliminate the northbound left-hand entrance ramp linking Virginia Ave. and Calvary St. with 65 North and 70 East.

Part of that never re opened, the oddball connector between Virginia Ave and Calvary is permanently blocked off, signs point you around the horn through the nearby intersection.

I think it was the source of some traffic problem there.


It was closed as a safety issue. I remember emailing INDOT asking why it's closed and that was their response. that ramp has to enter from the left because of weaving issues caused with the Washington street (and at the time of construction Market Street) exit. I would add merging distance to that and the MLK/West on ramp. I would also eliminate the Capitol Ave and Illinois Street exits and cap and cover the south split and realign prospect street.

FixThe74Sign

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 02:19:12 PM
The only changes I would make to the south split (besides adding additional lanes to Interstates 65 and 70), would be to make the 65/70 split have only right-handed exit and entrance ramps, and eliminate the northbound left-hand entrance ramp linking Virginia Ave. and Calvary St. with 65 North and 70 East.

Please no. I live near there and use that ramp all the time. INDOT needs to stop removing access to the interstates to appease these fantasies. For every bit of access they remove, people need to drive more and more on local streets. Streets that the local DPW is already working on road dieting.

Moose

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 07, 2023, 07:22:48 PM
Quote from: Moose on December 07, 2023, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 02:19:12 PM
eliminate the northbound left-hand entrance ramp linking Virginia Ave. and Calvary St. with 65 North and 70 East.

Part of that never re opened, the oddball connector between Virginia Ave and Calvary is permanently blocked off, signs point you around the horn through the nearby intersection.

I think it was the source of some traffic problem there.

It was closed as a safety issue. I remember emailing INDOT asking why it's closed and that was their response. that ramp has to enter from the left because of weaving issues caused with the Washington street (and at the time of construction Market Street) exit. I would add merging distance to that and the MLK/West on ramp. I would also eliminate the Capitol Ave and Illinois Street exits and cap and cover the south split and realign prospect street.

I think the Calvary Street to I65/I70 northbound ramp is reopened.

But what they did, is from google earth.. is they permanently closed the connector to that ramp from Virginia Ave to Calvary Street, and this seemed to have been done in 2017. They went so far as to pull down the BGS on Virgina Ave for it.

The connector is closed with K rails and a T post sign driven directly into the pavement.

Its not a big deal, you just drive around through the intersection a few yards away.

Permanent Closure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7559408,-86.1437952,3a,75y,335.68h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPDlLr9c0TGNGU1JHDyITCA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Temp Closure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7577315,-86.1433262,3a,75y,315.96h,87.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl7ZkwVRrAchw-ICrEONkBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Henry

I just saw the visualizations on the Rethink 65-70 website, and was impressed by what they came up with. I noticed that they mention Cincinnati and St. Louis as cities built along major rivers where depressed ("recessed" in their terms) freeways have been built, which Indianapolis is not, but they also add a bunch of other cities for comparison purposes, including the not-yet-begun Stitch in Atlanta.

While the recession would be a great benefit to Indianapolis, unfortunately it will not be done due to many factors (cost, and the fact that the North Split had already been reconstructed).
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Anthony_JK

#20
I guess this is an improvement on the usual "Rethink" ideas of simply eliminating and tearing down inner-city interstate freeways and replacing them with 4-lane surface boulevards (i.e., simply tearing everything down inside the I-465 loop and routing everything through there).

Nevertheless, I still see a major problem with limiting the depressed freeway section to 3x3 with local traffic reduced to 2x2 boulevards. Do they really think that traffic counts will automatically decrease simply by capping and restricting lanes? Or, is this just the usual "Let's reduce the lanes and force backups so severe that they will have no choice but to dump their cars and go to full rail-based transit like we want"? What happens if, due to the reduction of access to the neighborhoods to the endpoints of the caps, the congestion just gets placed on the surface frontage roads, which would still decrease access to the proposed parks located in the center section? What if the development they seek induces more people from outside to come in, which would increase the traffic and the demand, which would defeat the entire purpose of reducing noise and enhancing connectivity?

Also, this reeks of "urban removal"; the desire to exploit reconstruction of formerly Black neighborhoods in order to kick them out in favor of wealthier folks who can afford the costs of moving in, and thusly upgrading the tax base at the expense of the current residents.

They can talk about the "ugliness" of elevated freeways all they want, but they do the job that they are supposed to do, and I still think it would be better to use CSS design and better, more open connectivity within elevated viaduct structures (like what Lafayette is doing with the I-49 Connector project) than to completely wreck major thoroughfares just to satisfy some New Urbanite fantasies and hatred of freeways and the preference for auto-based transport.


Not saying that what they propose isn't impressive enough, and could even work in some cities and some contexts, but realism needs to win out over this fantasy of "freeways suck; make them disappear".

silverback1065

Quote from: FixThe74Sign on December 07, 2023, 07:23:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2023, 02:19:12 PM
The only changes I would make to the south split (besides adding additional lanes to Interstates 65 and 70), would be to make the 65/70 split have only right-handed exit and entrance ramps, and eliminate the northbound left-hand entrance ramp linking Virginia Ave. and Calvary St. with 65 North and 70 East.

Please no. I live near there and use that ramp all the time. INDOT needs to stop removing access to the interstates to appease these fantasies. For every bit of access they remove, people need to drive more and more on local streets. Streets that the local DPW is already working on road dieting.

I said that wrong, I meant remove the part that is already permanently closed and give the on ramp merging area. the ramp should stay just given merge area.

monty

Indianapolis Star story: Check out this article from IndyStar:

Move over, Carmel. This proposed sunken highway-roundabout for Indianapolis is massive

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2023/12/08/indianapolis-recessed-highway-renderings-interstate-65-i-70-465-fountain-square-bates-hendricks/71836533007/
monty

monty

monty




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.