I'm pretty sure that the continuation of US 31 around Indianapolis goes around the east side of the city on I-465, but is that the best route if you're proceeding north on US 31 (or I-65, for that matter) and want to continue north on US 31 toward South Bend? Or would going around the west side of town be the fastest?
As a long-time South Bend resident, I've had plenty of occasions to drive around Indy and continue south on I-65. My preferred route has always been veer off 31 on Keystone Parkway at Carmel and then around the east side of Indy on 465. This was true even when Keystone had several stoplights. Of course, 31 in the Carmel area also had several stoplights back in the day. Perhaps things have changed now that 31 has received the freeway treatment, though Keystone Parkway is nearly a freeway as well. I believe the last stoplight left is at 96th Street.
In my experience, traffic tends to move faster on the west side. More lanes for more miles. But I think the time difference would be very small unless there was some sort of traffic issue.
Nexus 7
A Hoosier-ism:
6 of one, half dozen of another.
Quote from: theline on October 02, 2016, 09:42:39 PM
As a long-time South Bend resident, I've had plenty of occasions to drive around Indy and continue south on I-65. My preferred route has always been veer off 31 on Keystone Parkway at Carmel and then around the east side of Indy on 465. This was true even when Keystone had several stoplights. Of course, 31 in the Carmel area also had several stoplights back in the day. Perhaps things have changed now that 31 has received the freeway treatment, though Keystone Parkway is nearly a freeway as well. I believe the last stoplight left is at 96th Street.
Except if you go around the east side and get off at Keystone Parkway (as I did when traveling to the Edwardsburg meet several years ago) you miss that portion of 31 for clinching purposes. :-p
take 31 all the way to 465 and go around the west side, way less traffic. the eastside between 31 and i-70 is pretty congested at evening rush hr. the new 31 is much better than keystone
Plans are to overnight north of the river and take US 31 all the way from the point where it splits with I-65 after a short concurrency to I-465, then loop around and resume traveling north on US 31 where it leaves I-465. I already have all of 465 clinched so it doesn't matter which way I go around the city; just looking for the easiest and fastest way.
Here is a question: Was it the right decision to remove all state and US highways from going through Indianapolis and routing them all on the 465 beltway, although there are too many to signpost?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:23:48 PM
Here is a question: Was it the right decision to remove all state and US highways from going through Indianapolis and routing them all on the 465 beltway, although they are too many to signpost?
Maybe. Some of these highways ran through some sketchy areas however. Indianapolis is currently around the 10th most dangerous city in the US right now. In Terre Haute they rerouted 40 onto SR 46 / I-70. I don't think overall it was the best thing for the city though. I don't think INDOT rerouted highways around Indy (or other towns) because of bad neighborhoods, but it is a valid reason. It was because INDOT simply didn't want to take care of them anymore. I wish the highways still ran through the cities, but it really doesn't make any difference either way I suppose.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:23:48 PM
Here is a question: Was it the right decision to remove all state and US highways from going through Indianapolis and routing them all on the 465 beltway, although they are too many to signpost?
Yes, it absolutely was the right decision. I live north of Indy and was not real happy at first about US 31 leaving Meridian Street thru Indy, but I think there has been no downside at all. There are several things to look at:
- Meridian Street itself is not a of highway quality - the lanes are narrow, left turn lanes are rare, and it travels through residential areas. Some areas have historical significance, so it never could be widened. Other former US and state routes also could never have been significantly upgraded.
- When going to downtown Indy, taking US 31 to I-465 to either I-65 or I-70 is actually faster coming from the north so I never take Meridian anymore.
- Travellers
always use freeways so my opinion is that there is no value to maintaining redundant surface street alternates as marked routes. Can you imagine anyone choosing to take US 40 over I-70 from I-465 to downtown Indy, for example?
- I think the city was very much onboard and willingly accepted the INDOT cash. The City of Indianapolis has been upgrading Meridian as fast as INDOT would have.
- The decision to use I-465 for all routes allowed INDOT to completely focus its highway improvement budget on the freeway system.
- As for marked routes going thru higher crime areas at night, that may be true, but that is not a problem unique to Indy. I have not studied crime maps in Indy to see how the old highways overlay those areas, and I don't think that was a major factor in the decision.
The only change I would have liked to have seen would be using Binford Blvd. as a highway and extending that to I-70. I don't think that will ever happen.
As awkward as some of the execution of the INDOT decommissionings through cities have been, the overall concept really does make sense.
Unless you are hitting rush hour, following the routing of 31 around the East side is about 5 minutes faster.
Quote from: mukade on October 04, 2016, 07:20:00 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:23:48 PM
Here is a question: Was it the right decision to remove all state and US highways from going through Indianapolis and routing them all on the 465 beltway, although they are too many to signpost?
Yes, it absolutely was the right decision. I live north of Indy and was not real happy at first about US 31 leaving Meridian Street thru Indy, but I think there has been no downside at all. There are several things to look at:
- Meridian Street itself is not a of highway quality - the lanes are narrow, left turn lanes are rare, and it travels through residential areas. Some areas have historical significance, so it never could be widened. Other former US and state routes also could never have been significantly upgraded.
- When going to downtown Indy, taking US 31 to I-465 to either I-65 or I-70 is actually faster coming from the north so I never take Meridian anymore.
- Travellers always use freeways so my opinion is that there is no value to maintaining redundant surface street alternates as marked routes. Can you imagine anyone choosing to take US 40 over I-70 from I-465 to downtown Indy, for example?
- I think the city was very much onboard and willingly accepted the INDOT cash. The City of Indianapolis has been upgrading Meridian as fast as INDOT would have.
- The decision to use I-465 for all routes allowed INDOT to completely focus its highway improvement budget on the freeway system.
- As for marked routes going thru higher crime areas at night, that may be true, but that is not a problem unique to Indy. I have not studied crime maps in Indy to see how the old highways overlay those areas, and I don't think that was a major factor in the decision.
The only change I would have liked to have seen would be using Binford Blvd. as a highway and extending that to I-70. I don't think that will ever happen.
As awkward as some of the execution of the INDOT decommissionings through cities have been, the overall concept really does make sense.
I agree, but I would have kept 37 and 31 inside the loop, everything else can go. kind of surprised west street isn't still a state road between 65 and 70, sign it as SR 270
Quote from: cabiness42 on October 04, 2016, 08:05:03 AM
Unless you are hitting rush hour, following the routing of 31 around the East side is about 5 minutes faster.
people on the east side drive a lot faster than on the west side i feel. most people are going at least 65 which helps.
Isn't the main reason all US and state routes were put on I-465 around the city was because of the "capped" mileage that Indiana has with its highways? Or was it because INDOT wanted to unload these streets that these routes were on to local maintenance? Ft. Wayne, South Bend, and Muncie have also routed most US and state highways around their cities--not to mention the recent re-routing of US 40 in Terre Haute.
Quote from: amroad17 on October 06, 2016, 03:49:03 AM
Isn't the main reason all US and state routes were put on I-465 around the city was because of the "capped" mileage that Indiana has with its highways? Or was it because INDOT wanted to unload these streets that these routes were on to local maintenance? Ft. Wayne, South Bend, and Muncie have also routed most US and state highways around their cities--not to mention the recent re-routing of US 40 in Terre Haute.
That was not a factor at all. The number of miles in the system are not near the cap.
it's just the cost of maintenance and redundancy.
Basically INDOT just wanted to unload some of the maintenance to Indianapolis/Marion County for upkeep, correct? And also to keep through travellers from using the local streets?
Quote from: amroad17 on October 07, 2016, 03:32:54 AM
Basically INDOT just wanted to unload some of the maintenance to Indianapolis/Marion County for upkeep, correct? And also to keep through travellers from using the local streets?
yep, and basically everywhere else for that matter. in certain instances they couldn't make a deal, like in kokomo with old 31, kokomo wanted to make it like keystone pkwy, INDOT didn't want to give so much money for that to happen, the deal fell through and now we have 931.
I'm surprised that they haven't tried this in Evansville yet. (Of course they may have tried and been rebuffed). I could see them try to move the east portion of IN 62 to I-69 and Lloyd Expressway, and return Morgan Ave to local control. They are putting a lot of money into US 41 repavement through town, so they may not want to do that yet. If they tried and I was a local official, I would howl long and loud, since that would be a money pit for the local government, even if just half of the heavy traffic moved off the road to I-69.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 07, 2016, 01:20:13 PM
I'm surprised that they haven't tried this in Evansville yet. (Of course they may have tried and been rebuffed). I could see them try to move the east portion of IN 62 to I-69 and Lloyd Expressway, and return Morgan Ave to local control. They are putting a lot of money into US 41 repavement through town, so they may not want to do that yet. If they tried and I was a local official, I would howl long and loud, since that would be a money pit for the local government, even if just half of the heavy traffic moved off the road to I-69.
This has come up before. I personally think the biggest reason they haven't, is there is no other name currently for the road. US 40 in Terre Haute is Wabash, in Indy it's Washington, etc. US 41 through Evansville is only that, and is so entrenched into the local mindset, it would take generations for people to quit referring to it as that. I don't think you can take a road, that is like US 41 in Evansville, and just turn it over to the local government. Seems like it would have to retain at least a state route designation, and is there any real benefit to INDOT to do such a thing if they still have to maintain it as a state highway?
i think i remember seeing somewhere that they want to get rid of diamond and morgan ave. idk what that means for routings, maybe 66 will go down university pkwy to the lloyd and be cosigned to 69 where they'll split off. isn't 41 known as dixie bee road?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:23:48 PM
Here is a question: Was it the right decision to remove all state and US highways from going through Indianapolis and routing them all on the 465 beltway, although there are too many to signpost?
I have wondered the same thing myself. It if was such a good idea then why hasn't any other city that has a beltway done it? Columbus has a beltway so does Cincinnati, St Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta ect. none of them did it. Although there are some routes that it made sense like US 52 and US 421 they took an angle route through the city it would be shorter for them to be duplexed on the beltway. However I think US 31 US 36 US 40 IN 37 and IN 67 should have remained going through the city.
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
I have wondered the same thing myself. It if was such a good idea then why hasn't any other city that has a beltway done it? Columbus has a beltway so does Cincinnati, St Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta ect. none of them did it.[/quote]
For St. Louis, they did kind of do it with US 50, which used to go through Downtown St. Louis, but is now mostly cosigned with interstates excluding a short section in Missouri. For US 40 however, on the Missouri side it was on a freeway by itself for many years prior to that freeway getting an interstate number. With the state routes, except for IL 3, there are/were not any that intersected the beltway twice. Plus, the St. Louis area is in two different states, so any reroute requires more coordination.
I was going to say Kansas City was more likely to cosign the US routes with the interstate parallel to them, but then I see large sections of US 24, US 69, and US 169 that still have non-freeway sections.
For cities where the rerouting of state and US highways to the bypass route does seem to have happened:
* Topeka, Kansas - all but US 24 spend some time on the I-70/I-470 loop
* Sioux City, Iowa? Only US 77 still goes into town, but it appears US 20 and US 75 have partially signed business routes
* Muscatine, Iowa? Hardly any routes through town, with IA 92 and IA 22 now multiplexing with US 61 and IA 38
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
I agree 100% on that one. I have made this point before you can still have the road be locally maintained and still signed as a state or US highway just to make the route more logical and not to confuse drivers. Virginia does this it works for them no reason why Indiana couldn't do it.
Virginia also has a large state highway system with many more miles than Indiana. And if Hoosiers see a state highway sign along a street, regardless of who officially maintains it, they will think that INDOT is responsible. If there's a highway sign, they will expect a yellow INDOT snowplow to go down the road and not that of the local municipality. Most of these people don't care about our technical definitions for highways or what INDOT officially has on the books. What's needed in these cities that lack a through state highway is an official route into town of some sort with way finding signs to direct motorists to the city center and back out. I experienced that in Lafayette trying to get back from downtown toward the new SR 25 expressway, a few signs saying "TO" SR 25 wouldn't be a bad idea.
Wouldn't be a bad idea. In Vincennes, IN, you have several "To IN 61" signs from Highway 41, going south along the old route, then directing you to take a left, then another left (approx 3-5 miles) until you pick up highway 61, which suddenly springs up as you go on the overpass over Highway 41, heading SE out of Vincennes. Although you feel like you are in a "Where's Waldo" picture, at least you have something to guide you.
Quote from: tdindy88 on October 08, 2016, 06:06:35 PM
Virginia also has a large state highway system with many more miles than Indiana. And if Hoosiers see a state highway sign along a street, regardless of who officially maintains it, they will think that INDOT is responsible. If there's a highway sign, they will expect a yellow INDOT snowplow to go down the road and not that of the local municipality. Most of these people don't care about our technical definitions for highways or what INDOT officially has on the books. What's needed in these cities that lack a through state highway is an official route into town of some sort with way finding signs to direct motorists to the city center and back out. I experienced that in Lafayette trying to get back from downtown toward the new SR 25 expressway, a few signs saying "TO" SR 25 wouldn't be a bad idea.
As long as our roads get plowed that's all that matters to me. I don't even pay attention to what the truck says on the side. Who cares who does it as long as it gets done that's good enough for me.
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 07, 2016, 02:13:31 PM
i think i remember seeing somewhere that they want to get rid of diamond and morgan ave. idk what that means for routings, maybe 66 will go down university pkwy to the lloyd and be cosigned to 69 where they'll split off. isn't 41 known as dixie bee road?
I am not normally in favor of these types of re-routings, but in the case of SR 62 and 66, this actually makes sense. At least the Lloyd would be consistent across Evansville. Having a through expressway suddenly switch numbers in the middle of a city seems silly, although most people don't even realize it.
If INDOT really wanted to fix something, they should correct their decades long mistake of the routings of 62 and 66 west of Evansville. That one has never made a bit of sense. On the east side of Mt. Vernon, there is a mileage sign for Evansville and BOONVILLE. While it is obviously done because SR 62 goes to Boonville, it seems highly illogical. It is at the beginning of a divided highway that runs straight for nearly 50 miles to Hatfield, basically along the Ohio River. I am certain that over 90% of the area residents would tell you Newburgh and Mt. Vernon are on the same highway, not Newburgh and New Harmony.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 03, 2016, 04:23:48 PM
Here is a question: Was it the right decision to remove all state and US highways from going through Indianapolis and routing them all on the 465 beltway, although there are too many to signpost?
Since nobody ever mentioned it on this thread, INDOT does not use trailblazer signs for the U.S. and state routes multiplexed along I-465 (and I-865) in the Indy metro area. Instead, along the entry ramps from such routes they have a BGS stating "FOR {route shield} {cardinal direction} FOLLOW {I-465 (or I-865)} TO EXIT xxx". I-74 is fully signed all along its multiplex, and I-69 will be once that route's Section 6 from Martinsville to I-465 (South Leg) is completed around 2024-2026 or so.
For trivia buffs, the section of I-465 on the SE side of Indy, between Exits 47 (US 52/Brookville Rd) and 49 (I-74/US 421/Southeastern Ave connector) has 8 concurrent routes: I-465, US 31, US 36, US 40, US 52, US 421, SR 37, & SR 67. And once I-69 is signed, there will be 9 routes sharing this section of I-465 mainline. Note that US 52 was once routed along the South & West Legs of I-465, but once the aforementioned Brookville Rd interchange was rebuilt to allow all movements, that was changed to the present routing along the East & North Legs to I-865.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
For longer trips, yes. However, most trips 5 miles or shorter (including those going to/from downtown) would not send you on I-465. It would either send you on I-65 or on US 31, and keeping the designation US 31 would be useful in the latter case. Same with US 40.
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 09:37:01 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
For longer trips, yes. However, most trips 5 miles or shorter (including those going to/from downtown) would not send you on I-465. It would either send you on I-65 or on US 31, and keeping the designation US 31 would be useful in the latter case. Same with US 40.
I can see the case for keeping US 31 on North Meridian between I-65 and I-465 due to the lack of interstate alternative, but there's really no good reason to keep 31 south of I-65 nor any of US 40 since I-65 and I-70 are so close by.
I think it simply comes down to the State of Indiana is separating itself from the localities where they can. They are returning the roads to the cities and therefore won't have to fund the maintenance of them, lessening their cost, and just making the municipalities have to spend money or increase taxes (if they can). In poor Indianapolis' case, they would probably have to assess every living, breathing human (housed or homeless) $1,000 to get their roads up to snuff. For some $1,000 may not mean as much, but to a lot of us, that is quite a few burgers.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 09:37:01 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
For longer trips, yes. However, most trips 5 miles or shorter (including those going to/from downtown) would not send you on I-465. It would either send you on I-65 or on US 31, and keeping the designation US 31 would be useful in the latter case. Same with US 40.
I can see the case for keeping US 31 on North Meridian between I-65 and I-465 due to the lack of interstate alternative, but there's really no good reason to keep 31 south of I-65 nor any of US 40 since I-65 and I-70 are so close by.
The problem with this scenario is the semi-truck traffic that would use on this route. Imagine big trucks going by the Governor's Mansion and other gated communities?
they were doing it up until 2002, when INDOT took 31 off meridian street. Indy has an infrastructure crisis at the moment, nearly all the roads here are trash, potholes everywhere, hundreds of damaged vehicles. Decades of ignoring the problem and unigov have finally come to roost.
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on April 24, 2018, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 09:37:01 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
For longer trips, yes. However, most trips 5 miles or shorter (including those going to/from downtown) would not send you on I-465. It would either send you on I-65 or on US 31, and keeping the designation US 31 would be useful in the latter case. Same with US 40.
I can see the case for keeping US 31 on North Meridian between I-65 and I-465 due to the lack of interstate alternative, but there's really no good reason to keep 31 south of I-65 nor any of US 40 since I-65 and I-70 are so close by.
The problem with this scenario is the semi-truck traffic that would use on this route. Imagine big trucks going by the Governor's Mansion and other gated communities?
How much traffic, truck or otherwise, is going to change their route due to the change in the routing of a highway? Seems to me that most people are going to take the fastest route regardless of how it is or isn't numbered.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 25, 2018, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on April 24, 2018, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 09:37:01 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
For longer trips, yes. However, most trips 5 miles or shorter (including those going to/from downtown) would not send you on I-465. It would either send you on I-65 or on US 31, and keeping the designation US 31 would be useful in the latter case. Same with US 40.
I can see the case for keeping US 31 on North Meridian between I-65 and I-465 due to the lack of interstate alternative, but there's really no good reason to keep 31 south of I-65 nor any of US 40 since I-65 and I-70 are so close by.
The problem with this scenario is the semi-truck traffic that would use on this route. Imagine big trucks going by the Governor's Mansion and other gated communities?
How much traffic, truck or otherwise, is going to change their route due to the change in the routing of a highway? Seems to me that most people are going to take the fastest route regardless of how it is or isn't numbered.
Exactly. Just look at the ridiculous routing of US 24 in Allen County. After I-469 was built, they had US 24 using the east & south legs to I-69 (which made SENSE), but then back NORTH to Upper Huntington Rd (now Jefferson Blvd) then back south to Huntington. Crazy! Those in the know just stayed on Lafayette Center Rd (which is what clockwise I-469 becomes west of I-69) until it runs into US 24 in Huntington County about 5 miles from the end of the freeway. Of course, after they built the GM Truck plant, that became a tad congested at certain times, but still better than going 12 or so miles out of one's way! Now INDOT has re-routed US 24 to use the NORTH leg of I-469 and then south on I-69, but that routing makes little sense either (and runs into FAR more congestion along the way). They just should have just improved Lafayette Center Rd years before they did and used it along with the original I-469 path as the official routing for US 24.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 25, 2018, 11:48:59 AM
How much traffic, truck or otherwise, is going to change their route due to the change in the routing of a highway? Seems to me that most people are going to take the fastest route regardless of how it is or isn't numbered.
Depends how familiar they are with the area. I
think there are usually fewer truck restrictions on state and US routes, and if there are such restrictions they are usually signed better than they would be on a local roadway.
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 28, 2018, 02:26:08 PM
Exactly. Just look at the ridiculous routing of US 24 in Allen County. After I-469 was built, they had US 24 using the east & south legs to I-69 (which made SENSE), but then back NORTH to Upper Huntington Rd (now Jefferson Blvd) then back south to Huntington. Crazy! Those in the know just stayed on Lafayette Center Rd (which is what clockwise I-469 becomes west of I-69) until it runs into US 24 in Huntington County about 5 miles from the end of the freeway. Of course, after they built the GM Truck plant, that became a tad congested at certain times, but still better than going 12 or so miles out of one's way! Now INDOT has re-routed US 24 to use the NORTH leg of I-469 and then south on I-69, but that routing makes little sense either (and runs into FAR more congestion along the way). They just should have just improved Lafayette Center Rd years before they did and used it along with the original I-469 path as the official routing for US 24.
This is the same agency that believes that Teal Road qualifies as part of the bypass around Lafayette (for state routes,) instead of the roadway that actually looks like, and once was, the actual bypass.
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 29, 2018, 11:57:14 AM
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 28, 2018, 02:26:08 PM
Exactly. Just look at the ridiculous routing of US 24 in Allen County. After I-469 was built, they had US 24 using the east & south legs to I-69 (which made SENSE), but then back NORTH to Upper Huntington Rd (now Jefferson Blvd) then back south to Huntington. Crazy! Those in the know just stayed on Lafayette Center Rd (which is what clockwise I-469 becomes west of I-69) until it runs into US 24 in Huntington County about 5 miles from the end of the freeway. Of course, after they built the GM Truck plant, that became a tad congested at certain times, but still better than going 12 or so miles out of one's way! Now INDOT has re-routed US 24 to use the NORTH leg of I-469 and then south on I-69, but that routing makes little sense either (and runs into FAR more congestion along the way). They just should have just improved Lafayette Center Rd years before they did and used it along with the original I-469 path as the official routing for US 24.
This is the same agency that believes that Teal Road qualifies as part of the bypass around Lafayette (for state routes,) instead of the roadway that actually looks like, and once was, the actual bypass.
it was going to be worse, at one time teal was going to be 52, 25, and 26! but they realized that was dumb, so they went to the gapped filled nonsense they have now. they'd love to have a gap in 52, but since it's a us highway, they can't do that.
also sagamore parkway's reconstruction looks like hot garbage in lafayette, just an ugly mess of a road!
Quote from: SSR_317 on April 28, 2018, 02:26:08 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 25, 2018, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: 2trailertrucker on April 24, 2018, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2018, 09:37:01 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 24, 2018, 09:13:17 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on October 08, 2016, 11:18:59 AM
I think Indiana was foolish to remove state highways through cities. Sure, the locals mostly know where they are going, but for those that are traveling through, visiting, etc., its a true cluster when you are trying to go to a town the first time, looking at your GPS which shows the highway, but all the signs have been removed!
If you're using GPS and are on 31 one one side of Indy and your destination is on or near 31 on the other side of Indy, the GPS is going to route you around on 465 regardless of how 31 is routed because it's faster.
For longer trips, yes. However, most trips 5 miles or shorter (including those going to/from downtown) would not send you on I-465. It would either send you on I-65 or on US 31, and keeping the designation US 31 would be useful in the latter case. Same with US 40.
I can see the case for keeping US 31 on North Meridian between I-65 and I-465 due to the lack of interstate alternative, but there's really no good reason to keep 31 south of I-65 nor any of US 40 since I-65 and I-70 are so close by.
The problem with this scenario is the semi-truck traffic that would use on this route. Imagine big trucks going by the Governor's Mansion and other gated communities?
How much traffic, truck or otherwise, is going to change their route due to the change in the routing of a highway? Seems to me that most people are going to take the fastest route regardless of how it is or isn't numbered.
Exactly. Just look at the ridiculous routing of US 24 in Allen County. After I-469 was built, they had US 24 using the east & south legs to I-69 (which made SENSE), but then back NORTH to Upper Huntington Rd (now Jefferson Blvd) then back south to Huntington. Crazy! Those in the know just stayed on Lafayette Center Rd (which is what clockwise I-469 becomes west of I-69) until it runs into US 24 in Huntington County about 5 miles from the end of the freeway. Of course, after they built the GM Truck plant, that became a tad congested at certain times, but still better than going 12 or so miles out of one's way! Now INDOT has re-routed US 24 to use the NORTH leg of I-469 and then south on I-69, but that routing makes little sense either (and runs into FAR more congestion along the way). They just should have just improved Lafayette Center Rd years before they did and used it along with the original I-469 path as the official routing for US 24.
Common sense would have been for INDOT to take over Lafayette Center Road as the new routing of 24 once the widening and railroad overpass was done, but common sense didn't prevail. It is silly for 24 to go around the north side and down 69 through the middle of town if the idea is to bypass the middle of town. Coming in on 30 from Ohio frequently headed for 25 at Logansport, it is a no-brainer to go south on 469 and then over Lafayette Center. Even before the widening, INDOT's own signs on 24 eastbound at Roanoke said to turn onto 900/Laf Ctr. to go to FWA Airport, which interestingly enough back before 24 was rerouted, put you back onto 24 before getting to the airport! They even knew themselves that it was sensible to go that way if you were headed anywhere that direction.
Allen and Huntington Counties probably wouldn't want the mileage of existing 24 between Roanoke and I-69, so we're probably stuck with it as is, but it is silly. The new 900/Lafayette Center road with a 55 speed limit and 4-5 lanes and several miles less distance is silly to not post as part of 24.
wasn't the lafayette center road project done by indot too? they should route 24 that way, and slap a 9 on the old alignment (SR 924) highways that start with a 9 mean that indot doesn't care about them, i.e. they are desperate to give it to the county or city they go through.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 05, 2018, 10:32:31 PM
wasn't the lafayette center road project done by indot too? they should route 24 that way, and slap a 9 on the old alignment (SR 924) highways that start with a 9 mean that indot doesn't care about them, i.e. they are desperate to give it to the county or city they go through.
I believe it was an INDOT project. But they just rerouted US 24 along the northern leg of I-469 a few years ago, so restoring it back to the original routing along the east & south legs of that partial beltway, then straight ahead on Lafayette Center Rd, is probably NOT gonna happen as they'd likely balk at spending money on re-signing the route yet again.
IMO, it's a shame that control cities are not used at all on I465 (with the exception of the portion multiplexed with I-74). If they are directing all this thru traffic onto it, they should better direct them where to go. The control cities used should follow the method of other midwestern beltways and use the controls of the 2dis that it intersects with (and not local suburbs). Chicago, Dayton, Louisville, and St Louis will all be good controls. Chicago should be on as many signs as possible to direct traffic from the south side of I-65 clockwise, and from the east side of I-70 counter clockwise.
That could be interesting once I-69 gets routed onto I-465. Could there be signs with Peoria/Evansville and Cincinnati/Fort Wayne on them? And then you thrown Chicago, Louisville, St. Louis and Dayton on them? At least there are travel time signs with those four control cities that provide possible routes and times along them to guide traffic, it's better than a lot of places have.
Now if there were auxiliary signs approaching the main interstate interchanges that could be something. Approaching each exit there would be two signs with control cities along I-65. If need be these can be included at other exits with minor roadways.
I-65 (Southside): Fort Wayne/Dayton/Cincinnati for I-465 east and Chicago/Peoria/St. Louis for I-465 west
I-65 at I-865 (NW Side): Fort Wayne/Dayton/Cincinnati for I-865 east to I-465
I-65 at I-465 (NW Side): Peoria/St. Louis/Louisville for I-465 south
I-70 (Westside): Louisville/Cincinnati/Dayton for I-465 south and Peoria/Chicago/Fort Wayne for I-465 north
I-70 (Eastside): Cincinnati/Louisville/St. Louis for I-465 south and Fort Wayne and Chicago for I-465 north (hard to say where Peoria goes)
I-74 (Westside): Chicago/Fort Wayne for I-465 north and St. Louis/Louisville/Cincinnati for I-465 south (hard to say where Dayton goes)
I-74 (Eastside): Dayton/Fort Wayne/Chicago for I-465 north and Louisville/St. Louis/Peoria for I-465 south
I-69 (northside): Chicago/Peoria/St. Louis for I-465 west and Dayton/Cincinnati/Louisville for I-465 south
Of course this will all be messed up when I-69 and presumably Evansville gets added to the mix. Three controls on one sign is already pushing INDOT's limit.
Quote from: mrsman on May 18, 2018, 10:17:04 AM
If they are directing all this thru traffic onto it,...
I'm not sure where the idea originated that "someone" is trying to reroute all through traffic away from the inner city. If it's because of the "Travel Time to ABC via X or Y" information signs, I think those are only to assist motorists in choosing what route is best for them, based on current traffic conditions -- nothing else.
I drive on Indianapolis freeways every day. I don't feel like "they" are trying to get me to use I-465 instead of I-65 or I-70 through downtown.
Quote from: mrsman on May 18, 2018, 10:17:04 AM
IMO, it's a shame that control cities are not used at all on I465 (with the exception of the portion multiplexed with I-74). If they are directing all this thru traffic onto it, they should better direct them where to go. The control cities used should follow the method of other midwestern beltways and use the controls of the 2dis that it intersects with (and not local suburbs). Chicago, Dayton, Louisville, and St Louis will all be good controls. Chicago should be on as many signs as possible to direct traffic from the south side of I-65 clockwise, and from the east side of I-70 counter clockwise.
i-270 in colombus, ohio is like this, i think its a good idea
INDOT just did a traffic study and found that only 10% of traffic is through traffic (crossing 465 twice)
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 18, 2018, 12:07:02 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 18, 2018, 10:17:04 AM
IMO, it's a shame that control cities are not used at all on I465 (with the exception of the portion multiplexed with I-74). If they are directing all this thru traffic onto it, they should better direct them where to go. The control cities used should follow the method of other midwestern beltways and use the controls of the 2dis that it intersects with (and not local suburbs). Chicago, Dayton, Louisville, and St Louis will all be good controls. Chicago should be on as many signs as possible to direct traffic from the south side of I-65 clockwise, and from the east side of I-70 counter clockwise.
i-270 in colombus, ohio is like this, i think its a good idea
St. Louis and Atlanta (not in midwest) do this as well. I associate the practice as being midwestern and helps people get around the cities. Whereas, you would never see this in the coastal areas. In the coastal areas, be familiar with the small suburbs where the big 2dis intersect the beltway, because that is your control city.
In St. Louis, it seems like every interchange of I-270 and I-255 (excepting of course I-55 northern) mentions taking one direction of the Beltway to reach Chicago. Indianapolis should also have this.
The question that tdindy88 raised was wether its appropriate to list every control city. I'd say no. The signs should be limited to two control cities each. [Most interchanges of the I-285 in Atlanta mention two controls.] The decision has to be based on whichever is a likely destination based on where you are coming from.
So, I would do the following:
I-65 (Southside): Fort Wayne/Cincinnati for I-465 east and Peoria/Chicago for I-465 west
I-65 at I-865 (NW Side): Dayton/Cincinnati for I-865 east to I-465
I-65 at I-465 (NW Side): St. Louis/Louisville for I-465 south
I-70 (Westside): Louisville/Cincinnati for I-465 south and Chicago/Fort Wayne for I-465 north
I-70 (Eastside): Louisville/St. Louis for I-465 south and Fort Wayne/Chicago for I-465 north
I-74 (Westside): Chicago/Fort Wayne for I-465 north and Louisville/Cincinnati for I-465 south
I-74 (Eastside): Fort Wayne/Chicago for I-465 north and Louisville/Peoria for I-465 south
I-69 (northside): Chicago/St. Louis for I-465 west and Cincinnati/Louisville for I-465 south
Not a perfect system, but at least it is somewhat helpful to long distance drivers.
Considering INDOT hasn't even bothered with a northbound control city on I-69 for the entire length from Evansville, southbound on I-69 past I-64, or even a single mileage sign, I wouldn't hold your breath for this.
Curious, once 69 gets to Indy, how would you change them to include Evansville? That seems to get pretty tricky.
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 19, 2018, 11:20:59 AM
Considering INDOT hasn't even bothered with a northbound control city on I-69 for the entire length from Evansville, southbound on I-69 past I-64, or even a single mileage sign, I wouldn't hold your breath for this.
Curious, once 69 gets to Indy, how would you change them to include Evansville? That seems to get pretty tricky.
once 69 makes it to indy you will see control cities
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 20, 2018, 03:51:06 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 19, 2018, 11:20:59 AM
Considering INDOT hasn't even bothered with a northbound control city on I-69 for the entire length from Evansville, southbound on I-69 past I-64, or even a single mileage sign, I wouldn't hold your breath for this.
Curious, once 69 gets to Indy, how would you change them to include Evansville? That seems to get pretty tricky.
once 69 makes it to indy you will see control cities
I don't see why they are waiting at this point. Regardless of whether it is called 69 or SR 37, it is the route to Indianapolis. St. Louis is used as a control city on I-24, and it doesn't get within 100 miles of there, just points you in the general direction. Frankly, I don't see why they don't put Bloomington on there for now. They can always replace it, or God forbid, have two control cities. Same for the mileage. There is no reason not to have southbound mileage signs, or for that matter even northbound. It's not like the distance to Indianapolis is going to change with the 37-69 conversion.
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 21, 2018, 12:14:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 20, 2018, 03:51:06 PM
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 19, 2018, 11:20:59 AM
Considering INDOT hasn't even bothered with a northbound control city on I-69 for the entire length from Evansville, southbound on I-69 past I-64, or even a single mileage sign, I wouldn't hold your breath for this.
Curious, once 69 gets to Indy, how would you change them to include Evansville? That seems to get pretty tricky.
once 69 makes it to indy you will see control cities
I don't see why they are waiting at this point. Regardless of whether it is called 69 or SR 37, it is the route to Indianapolis. St. Louis is used as a control city on I-24, and it doesn't get within 100 miles of there, just points you in the general direction. Frankly, I don't see why they don't put Bloomington on there for now. They can always replace it, or God forbid, have two control cities. Same for the mileage. There is no reason not to have southbound mileage signs, or for that matter even northbound. It's not like the distance to Indianapolis is going to change with the 37-69 conversion.
I think it is because there has to be an
existing Interstate connection to a control city at the end of such a route (or along the way, as with Dayton & I-70). Rather than put Bloomington on as one temporarily, they are cutting costs and waiting to do that until Section 6 is completed (which might not be until 2025, given the present schedule). As you noted, I-24 doesn't get you all the way to St. Louis, but does get you to another Interstate (I-57) which in turn gets you to another (I-64) that does. Same situation with I-65 & Chicago (and many other examples).
Guess INDOT has dismissed doing what MI did near Lansing when the
real I-69 (now SIU #1) had a gap between Charlotte & the city and designated what was then US 27 as "Temporary I-69". If they were gonna do that, they would've done it once Section 4 opened a few years ago. Don't know if AASHTO allows that anymore anyway.
There will potentially be a similar dilemma out west, as I-11 is not presently proposed to get anywhere near the city limits of Phoenix. However it will (someday, somewhere) connect to I-10 which does enter Arizona's capitol city, so Phoenix will thus qualify as a control city for I-11. And it will likely soon be signed as one (at least by NDOT) regardless of the completion status of the route in AZ (which might take a decade or two), though how ADOT will handle it is another matter entirely.
I'm pretty sure that the control city on I-64 heading east out of Louisville was Lexington long before 1971, when the gap between Frankfort and Lexington was completed.
Ditto for I-81 northbound at Wytheville for Roanoke despite the gap at Fort Chiswell.
I-795 South in North Carolina uses Wilmington as one of the control cities at the US-70 Bypass (Future I-42) interchange just north of Goldsboro even though I-795 ends at US-70 near downtown.
Granted, the FAST Act that Congress passed in 2015 made US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 a HPC and future extension of I-795, but Wilmington was already being used long before the FAST Act was thought of.
There is no good reason that Evansville or Memphis could not be signed as the control today. There are many non freeway routes signed as long distance cities if that's the best route. There are also signed as such for incomplete interstates as well. Take i384 in Hartford with a control for Providence for example.
Nexus 5X
I-384 runs from East Hartford to Bolton, CT. Several miles east is a expressway section of US Route 6 near Willimantic, CT. The least Connecticut could do is join those two sections together.
As for Indiana, is there a real reason why US routes don't seem to be signed on their interstates? I once stayed at a hotel off of I-74/I-465. I believe it was Rockville Road/US Route 36, on the west side of the city.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 28, 2018, 08:44:22 PM
I-384 runs from East Hartford to Bolton, CT. Several miles east is a expressway section of US Route 6 near Willimantic, CT. The least Connecticut could do is join those two sections together.
As for Indiana, is there a real reason why US routes don't seem to be signed on their interstates? I once stayed at a hotel off of I-74/I-465. I believe it was Rockville Road/US Route 36, on the west side of the city.
they are on all multiplexed routes, with the only exception being if they are on 465, only multiplexed interstates are cosigned. it's because there's an assload of state and us routes that use 465 to bypass the inner city.
Quote from: mrsman on May 28, 2018, 12:53:45 AM
There is no good reason that Evansville or Memphis could not be signed as the control today. There are many non freeway routes signed as long distance cities if that's the best route. There are also signed as such for incomplete interstates as well. Take i384 in Hartford with a control for Providence for example.
Nexus 5X
i think you're right, but it's indot policy to not give it control cities until it makes it up to 465
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 29, 2018, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 28, 2018, 12:53:45 AM
There is no good reason that Evansville or Memphis could not be signed as the control today. There are many non freeway routes signed as long distance cities if that's the best route. There are also signed as such for incomplete interstates as well. Take i384 in Hartford with a control for Providence for example.
Nexus 5X
i think you're right, but it's indot policy to not give it control cities until it makes it up to 465
Evansville is signed as the control city southbound from Bloomington. It's northbound that is blank on the completed section from Evansville to Bloomington. No reason Bloomington and or Indianapolis can't be signed.
I guess blank is better than the non-sense Kentucky is doing. They are using Elizabethtown as the control city for northbound 69 starting with the split at I-24. I understand that this used to be the Western KY Parkway, but these are new I-69 signs, and 69 doesn't go anywhere near Elizabethtown, and never will. If they can't bring themselves to use Evansville on there because of the bridge, at least use Henderson.
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 29, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
I guess blank is better than the non-sense Kentucky is doing. They are using Elizabethtown as the control city for northbound 69 starting with the split at I-24. I understand that this used to be the Western KY Parkway, but these are new I-69 signs, and 69 doesn't go anywhere near Elizabethtown, and never will. If they can't bring themselves to use Evansville on there because of the bridge, at least use Henderson.
Probably because -- and this is just a guess on my part -- the majority of long-distance traffic that exits I-24 at that location is going to E-town, not Henderson/Evansville/Indianapolis. My guess is that when the new bridge is completed, it will be time for new signage to be installed. I'd recommend a dual destination of E-town and either Henderson or Evansville.
I still get worked up about the fact that southbound I-69 has Fulton all over the place as a control city and mileage. Just like I-69 north of Evansville. The road is heading to Indianapolis, whether or not the freeway is done. It's four lane all the way. Going south it's heading to Memphis, four lane all the way whether it's I-69 or US-51. Most people traveling through have no idea what Fulton, KY or South Fulton, TN is or where it is, but they have a better idea where Memphis is.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 29, 2018, 10:58:55 AM
Quote from: Captain Jack on May 29, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
I guess blank is better than the non-sense Kentucky is doing. They are using Elizabethtown as the control city for northbound 69 starting with the split at I-24. I understand that this used to be the Western KY Parkway, but these are new I-69 signs, and 69 doesn't go anywhere near Elizabethtown, and never will. If they can't bring themselves to use Evansville on there because of the bridge, at least use Henderson.
Probably because -- and this is just a guess on my part -- the majority of long-distance traffic that exits I-24 at that location is going to E-town, not Henderson/Evansville/Indianapolis. My guess is that when the new bridge is completed, it will be time for new signage to be installed. I'd recommend a dual destination of E-town and either Henderson or Evansville.
I am not sure on the traffic count. There are a lot of people from Evansville-Henderson-Owensboro that go to the lake area. The WK gets pretty sparse between Greenville and E-town.
Even if that is the case, it still doesn't make sense, or is consistent. As Life in Paradise pointed out, the control city coming out of Henderson on I-69 is Fulton. This is the old Pennyrile segment, and I am certain most traffic is still going south at the 69-WK-Pennyrile junction than following I-69. If E-town is used, then certainly Hopkinsville should be used for the southbound segment from Henderson. Not only is more traffic headed south, Hopkinsville is actually closer to 69 than E-town. There isn't any signs or mileage for Hopkinsville until you reach the split. In short, if KY is using Fulton instead of Hopkinsville, then they should use Henderson instead of E-town. I agree with Life though that Fulton is a pathetic control city, and Memphis-Evansville should be the ones used.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on May 29, 2018, 11:16:37 AM
I still get worked up about the fact that southbound I-69 has Fulton all over the place as a control city and mileage. Just like I-69 north of Evansville. The road is heading to Indianapolis, whether or not the freeway is done. It's four lane all the way. Going south it's heading to Memphis, four lane all the way whether it's I-69 or US-51. Most people traveling through have no idea what Fulton, KY or South Fulton, TN is or where it is, but they have a better idea where Memphis is.
Not only that, but I'll bet that most traffic entering the former Pennyrile Parkway in the Madisonville area is probably headed for either Hopkinsville or Paducah.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 29, 2018, 01:20:11 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on May 29, 2018, 11:16:37 AM
I still get worked up about the fact that southbound I-69 has Fulton all over the place as a control city and mileage. Just like I-69 north of Evansville. The road is heading to Indianapolis, whether or not the freeway is done. It's four lane all the way. Going south it's heading to Memphis, four lane all the way whether it's I-69 or US-51. Most people traveling through have no idea what Fulton, KY or South Fulton, TN is or where it is, but they have a better idea where Memphis is.
Not only that, but I'll bet that most traffic entering the former Pennyrile Parkway in the Madisonville area is probably headed for either Hopkinsville or Paducah.
Good point. When the official I-169 signs go up on what is now the South Pennyrile, they should list at least Hopkinsville as a control city. They could do Clarksville or Nashville as well. I-69 West should also have Paducah on it from that intersection.
Speaking of Fulton, I had to research it (meaning look it up on a map) as when I did a virtual GSV tour I saw it there and it looked strange as Pacucah should really be used and if you say Fulton is used all the way from Henderson than Hopkinsville is a better selection especially that the south end of the former Parkway is now I-169.
Fort Criswell used on I-77 by NCDOT is another one. Sure its where I-77 meets I-81, but Charleston, WV is a better and more feasible city to be used.
Then there is the Los Angeles used by both Arizona and Nevada both for I-40 and I-15 because of defunct Route 66 and US 91 originally went there before the interstates which now have their traffic. Arizona DOT sent me a letter years ago when I questioned them about signs in Flagstaff citing LA and not Kingman, and it was read back to me that its copying old US 66 that did go to Los Angeles.
So if these two states can use cities not on the signed interstates, why can't a state like Kentucky do so too? They do already for I-69 North from I-24 using E- Town which there it should be two cities as both Henderson (or Evansville) and E-Town being its actually two through routes now (even though the WP name is retired where I-69 is concurrent).