?
Indiana only allows a certain number of miles in their highway system, so putting them all on I-465 decreases the number of miles used.
Also, they're not actually signed while they're on I-465.
Quote from: 1 on May 31, 2017, 08:41:49 PM
Indiana only allows a certain number of miles in their highway system, so putting them all on I-465 decreases the number of miles used.
Because of that mileage limit, Indianapolis is not the only place this happens. Basically, if a city has a bypass, almost everything in the vicinity is thrown on it.
I hear this as a reason all the time, I actually think it's more because Indot doesn't feel like taking care of urban roads, they're very expensive.
Nexus 6P
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 31, 2017, 09:08:18 PM
I hear this as a reason all the time, I actually think it's more because Indot doesn't feel like taking care of urban roads, they're very expensive.
Nexus 6P
I think there are locally maintained state routes in mass.
In the small towns yes, but in the larger ones not so much. I think it's both reasons mentioned so far.
Nexus 6P
I've seen it mentioned in other threads that Indiana is not up against its mileage limit. The reason for the routings is that INDOT does not want to maintain city streets, so whenever possible they route their state and US routes around cities.
Fort Wayne, South Bend and Lafayette have also had several miles of highways re-routed around the cities over the years.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 01, 2017, 07:54:23 AM
I've seen it mentioned in other threads that Indiana is not up against its mileage limit. The reason for the routings is that INDOT does not want to maintain city streets, so whenever possible they route their state and US routes around cities.
Fort Wayne, South Bend and Lafayette have also had several miles of highways re-routed around the cities over the years.
And in Indianapolis' case you are often better off following the I-465 routing if the goal is to follow the highway through the city in the quickest way possible. I know in Lafayette the new routings are inferior/nonexistent when trying to get from one side of the city to another. At least in Indy the routings do exist and they typically follow the best route.
Seems to me that lots of cities would prefer to maintain their streets themselves and do whatever they want vs. the state owning the streets and the cities having to get state permission to make changes.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 01, 2017, 03:41:03 PM
Seems to me that lots of cities would prefer to maintain their streets themselves and do whatever they want vs. the state owning the streets and the cities having to get state permission to make changes.
Which is how it works in the New England states and New York. Generally, everything inside city limits is owned by cities.
INDOT has been giving away some state highway routes to local governments who want to make their own improvements. INDOT signs away the road and gives some amount of money for deferred maintenance or the like. Indiana 267 between U.S. 40 and I-74 in Hendricks County is one example.
If I remember correctly, Indianapolis didn't route all their inner-city State and US Highways onto Interstate 465 at once, just gradually. Also if I remember correctly, US 31, US 40 and State Highway 37 still went through town into the 1990s.
i believe 31 was the last one to go and it was in 2002. 37 was supposed to be a freeway inside the loop from 465 and harding up to 69 on the ne side. nimbys fucked that up though
There are a few ghost ramps at the I-65/I-70 north split in downtown Indy where I-69 was supposed to branch off to the north.
https://goo.gl/maps/n1udPGVeDAk
https://goo.gl/maps/y3uuVx5fcsk
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2017, 04:30:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 01, 2017, 03:41:03 PM
Seems to me that lots of cities would prefer to maintain their streets themselves and do whatever they want vs. the state owning the streets and the cities having to get state permission to make changes.
Which is how it works in the New England states and New York. Generally, everything inside city limits is owned by cities.
Not in Connecticut though. CT 2, 2A, 12, 32, 97, 165, 82, 169, and various other unsigned routes exist in one city. Norwich, CT.
if you do some searching of purdue's owl library, you can get a research paper telling the story of why they highways are where they are. 37 was supposed to be an interstate grade road from harding and 465 up to the west split (65 and west st) then leave the inner loop as 69/37 at the north split. INDOT fucked up the routing of 69 and honestly 65 too.
This thread reminds me of when Ethanman asked why there is no interstate 1, 2 (as TX did not have that one yet), 3, ....32,33,.....etc.
He did not put text in the body of his first thread box, but let the grabbing topic title do the asking.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 13, 2017, 09:28:53 AM
This thread reminds me of when Ethanman asked why there is no interstate 1, 2 (as TX did not have that one yet), 3, ....32,33,.....etc.
He did not put text in the body of his first thread box, but let the grabbing topic title do the asking.
That was not Ethanman.
Maybe it was for the best that I-69 is planned to be rerouted in the eastern side of I-465. Had it been built all the way into downtown, how, then, would it continue to Bloomington and Evansville from that point?
Quote from: Henry on June 14, 2017, 09:39:34 AM
Maybe it was for the best that I-69 is planned to be rerouted in the eastern side of I-465. Had it been built all the way into downtown, how, then, would it continue to Bloomington and Evansville from that point?
Since I live in Indy, not building 69 to the north split was a very stupid mistake, there's no easy way to get downtown. Like I said the original routing would have allowed that as it could have used SR 37 to get to harding, as that was supposed to be an interstate too, if they cancelled that only, it could have been cosigned with 65 then jumped west on 465, or you could have routed it on 465 and the small piece inside would be another number.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 13, 2017, 01:33:27 AM
if you do some searching of purdue's owl library, you can get a research paper telling the story of why they highways are where they are. 37 was supposed to be an interstate grade road from harding and 465 up to the west split (65 and west st) then leave the inner loop as 69/37 at the north split. INDOT fucked up the routing of 69 and honestly 65 too.
I thought someone had posted, somewhere in the last 10-12 years, the original proposal(s) of the freeways in Indy (an innerbelt, ala Columbus to the east). I'm not sure if it was here, or back on MTR. Maybe it was Stephen Summer?
I'm pretty sure West St was supposed to pretty much be the location of the missing leg of a Downtown Indy Inner Belt
I believe at one point, Interstate 465 and 69, US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421, and IN 37 and 67 are all concurrent. If only concurrencies were signed on I-465...
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 15, 2017, 12:43:38 AM
I believe at one point, Interstate 465 and 69, US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421, and IN 37 and 67 are all concurrent. If only concurrencies were signed on I-465...
Indiana would be bankrupt.
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2017, 04:30:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 01, 2017, 03:41:03 PM
Seems to me that lots of cities would prefer to maintain their streets themselves and do whatever they want vs. the state owning the streets and the cities having to get state permission to make changes.
Which is how it works in the New England states and New York. Generally, everything inside city limits is owned by cities.
That's just hard for me to wrap my head around. In the SLC area, which is where I'm most familiar with, most roads, especially ones with interchanges at freeways, are state routes, maintained by the state.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 15, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 15, 2017, 12:43:38 AM
I believe at one point, Interstate 465 and 69, US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421, and IN 37 and 67 are all concurrent. If only concurrencies were signed on I-465...
Indiana would be bankrupt.
Hey if Colorado and New Mexico can have US routes on interstates and not be signed why can't Indiana? :bigass:
The same with US 67 and US 90 in TX, as the rest of the state seems to have no issue signing them (US 87 gets signed on I-27 and on I-10 for example) and Arkansas is another with US routes on interstates. US 64 through Fayetteville was not signed at all when I drove it last year.
At least some ramps tell you what exit to use to continue on the beltway for whatever route your on as the last time I was there in 08 US 31 S Bound was told to follow I-435 East to Exit x.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2017, 04:57:37 PM
Hey if Colorado and New Mexico can have US routes on interstates and not be signed why can't Indiana? :bigass:
Or Utah. Good luck following US-89 through it's I-15 concurrencies, or the US 189/I-80 concurrency, which isn't signed at all (see my signature).
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2017, 04:57:37 PM
At least some ramps tell you what exit to use to continue on the beltway for whatever route your on as the last time I was there in 08 US 31 S Bound was told to follow I-435 East to Exit x.
As far as I know, these are signed on all the US Routes that intersect I-465 (31, 36, 40, 52, 421). Here's US 40's on the west side:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIGVyD0l.jpg&hash=ecff8d4527bd8700810eeb08d07d812532b178c8)
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2017, 04:57:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 15, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 15, 2017, 12:43:38 AM
I believe at one point, Interstate 465 and 69, US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421, and IN 37 and 67 are all concurrent. If only concurrencies were signed on I-465...
Indiana would be bankrupt.
Hey if Colorado and New Mexico can have US routes on interstates and not be signed why can't Indiana? :bigass:
The same with US 67 and US 90 in TX, as the rest of the state seems to have no issue signing them (US 87 gets signed on I-27 and on I-10 for example) and Arkansas is another with US routes on interstates. US 64 through Fayetteville was not signed at all when I drove it last year.
At least some ramps tell you what exit to use to continue on the beltway for whatever route your on as the last time I was there in 08 US 31 S Bound was told to follow I-435 East to Exit x.
As far as I know the US routes on the beltway are not signed.
I wish our nation's capital would just let MD and VA sign US 1, US 29, and US 50 on I-495. Extend VA 110 to cover US 1 through Arlington and Alexandria. I am sure that VA could come up with useful numbers for US 50 and 29 along the inside of the Beltway. US 50 along the John Hanson Highway could be MD 595 and a nice three digit could suffice US 1 in College Park and Hyattsville.
DC from what I have seen or heard does not shield the US routes anymore and removed some without even replacing them as well. No one uses the numbers as in DC its all New York Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, and Constitution Avenue etc.
Are there any maps that show I-69's original proposed route through downtown? I believe they would have the downtown loop as well.
All of the highways the us 465 are signed at the ramps to tell you which exit to get off on to continue the route, except US 36/SR 67 pendelton pike, they never replaced those when they redid the interchange a few years ago.
Quote from: Henry on June 16, 2017, 09:13:10 AM
Are there any maps that show I-69's original proposed route through downtown? I believe they would have the downtown loop as well.
I'll try to post it, but basically 69 was supposed to shoot straight north from the north split, the western part of the loop never got very far off the ground, so i dont think there are maps of that.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2017, 04:57:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 15, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 15, 2017, 12:43:38 AM
I believe at one point, Interstate 465 and 69, US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421, and IN 37 and 67 are all concurrent. If only concurrencies were signed on I-465...
Indiana would be bankrupt.
Hey if Colorado and New Mexico can have US routes on interstates and not be signed why can't Indiana? :bigass:
The same with US 67 and US 90 in TX, as the rest of the state seems to have no issue signing them (US 87 gets signed on I-27 and on I-10 for example) and Arkansas is another with US routes on interstates. US 64 through Fayetteville was not signed at all when I drove it last year.
At least some ramps tell you what exit to use to continue on the beltway for whatever route your on as the last time I was there in 08 US 31 S Bound was told to follow I-435 East to Exit x.
I guess there is really no point in signing them.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2017, 07:11:49 PM
I wish our nation's capital would just let MD and VA sign US 1, US 29, and US 50 on I-495. Extend VA 110 to cover US 1 through Arlington and Alexandria. I am sure that VA could come up with useful numbers for US 50 and 29 along the inside of the Beltway. US 50 along the John Hanson Highway could be MD 595 and a nice three digit could suffice US 1 in College Park and Hyattsville.
DC from what I have seen or heard does not shield the US routes anymore and removed some without even replacing them as well. No one uses the numbers as in DC its all New York Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, and Constitution Avenue etc.
The US routes used to be well-signed in DC as recently as 15 years ago and quasi-signed at the beginning of this decade. Poking around GMSV it is nearly non-existent now, as you have said. All of these routes have turns, so that is worthless.
If US 1 were still signed I would say just keep it in DC because it is not a through route on either side of DC for a considerable distance, but moving US 29 and US 50 onto the beltway would certainly make sense. On the Virginia side, US 50 should also be put on I-66 because Arlington Blvd has a truck restriction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-17%2520at%252010.15.35%2520PM.png&hash=068a9d1eef7451b4d0fd63173b0eba1ce03ea51d) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-17%20at%2010.15.35%20PM.png.html)
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2909&context=jtrp
See page 439.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 14, 2017, 10:59:49 PM
I thought someone had posted, somewhere in the last 10-12 years, the original proposal(s) of the freeways in Indy (an innerbelt, ala Columbus to the east). I'm not sure if it was here, or back on MTR. Maybe it was Stephen Summer?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2257.msg51367#msg51367 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2257.msg51367#msg51367)
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 09:01:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2017, 07:11:49 PM
I wish our nation's capital would just let MD and VA sign US 1, US 29, and US 50 on I-495. Extend VA 110 to cover US 1 through Arlington and Alexandria. I am sure that VA could come up with useful numbers for US 50 and 29 along the inside of the Beltway. US 50 along the John Hanson Highway could be MD 595 and a nice three digit could suffice US 1 in College Park and Hyattsville.
DC from what I have seen or heard does not shield the US routes anymore and removed some without even replacing them as well. No one uses the numbers as in DC its all New York Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue, and Constitution Avenue etc.
The US routes used to be well-signed in DC as recently as 15 years ago and quasi-signed at the beginning of this decade. Poking around GMSV it is nearly non-existent now, as you have said. All of these routes have turns, so that is worthless.
If US 1 were still signed I would say just keep it in DC because it is not a through route on either side of DC for a considerable distance, but moving US 29 and US 50 onto the beltway would certainly make sense. On the Virginia side, US 50 should also be put on I-66 because Arlington Blvd has a truck restriction.
Not to go too far off track here, but moving US 50 onto the Beltway doesn't make much sense to me, given how important of a route it is into DC from the east.
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 15, 2017, 12:00:46 AM
I'm pretty sure West St was supposed to pretty much be the location of the missing leg of a Downtown Indy Inner Belt
the original place is actually west of the white river, but because the river is in the way, they chose west street, that's why it's like 8 lanes wide
A few other maps from the same source I posted earlier. Sorry about the poor quality; the original Purdue docs are fuzzy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-20%2520at%25208.56.08%2520PM.png&hash=e3d7ff3b9331e0ae3bf26a70a8be178939c394d3) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-20%20at%208.56.08%20PM.png.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-20%2520at%25208.57.02%2520PM.png&hash=4ab6a8d876b926401cfa620eef35fff69486980d) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-20%20at%208.57.02%20PM.png.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-20%2520at%25208.56.43%2520PM.png&hash=b9b7e253f1e0899ff44e8afbd5a28ba6f24a60ef) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-20%20at%208.56.43%20PM.png.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-20%2520at%25208.56.27%2520PM.png&hash=29b4815c15616ccee257844e275b74d0f91c4114) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-20%20at%208.56.27%20PM.png.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-20%2520at%25208.55.47%2520PM.png&hash=f526f4decc9136f089f1b5bb4d5006d4056b4053) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-20%20at%208.55.47%20PM.png.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi29.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc272%2Fcjfjapan%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202017-06-20%2520at%25208.55.29%2520PM.png&hash=9f425728c0c5b441cac5c942b6ecf3b130683d30) (http://s29.photobucket.com/user/cjfjapan/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-20%20at%208.55.29%20PM.png.html)
I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking not having anything going northeast, they seriously fucked that up royally. I'd rather not have 65 exist inside the loop than not having 69.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 20, 2017, 09:40:28 PM
I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking not having anything going northeast, they seriously fucked that up royally. I'd rather not have 65 exist inside the loop than not having 69.
It looks like they thought about having 69 go northeast, and then decided not to go through with it. Probably a bunch of NIMBYs cancelled it.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 21, 2017, 12:33:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 20, 2017, 09:40:28 PM
I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking not having anything going northeast, they seriously fucked that up royally. I'd rather not have 65 exist inside the loop than not having 69.
It looks like they thought about having 69 go northeast, and then decided not to go through with it. Probably a bunch of NIMBYs cancelled it.
basically, and after that, they tried to build 165 which would have went from the north split to 38th st, if they did that, they would have inevitably built 69 eventually.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 19, 2017, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 15, 2017, 12:00:46 AMg
I'm pretty sure West St was supposed to pretty much be the location of the missing leg of a Downtown Indy Inner Belt
IIRC within that linked document is a discussion of West Street and the proposed west leg of the Inner belt. The intent was to put it below ground level like a good chunk of the east leg, but tests indicated the water table w from the White River was too high to allow that. West Street / Missouri Street was the result
the original place is actually west of the white river, but because the river is in the way, they chose west street, that's why it's like 8 lanes wide
I'm guessing it was done to limit the state and US highways going through Indianapolis. The beltway there works pretty good too. The only freeways within the beltway are I-65 and I-70 both of which travel through the area but I-69 and I-74 get put on the beltway.
I remember as a kid back sometime in the 1970s seeing a map of what was supposed to be current and future Indianapolis interstates, and it had I-74 on the southeast side inside I-465, going up Southeastern Ave until it turned due west to the south I-65-70 junction. Same map had I-69 coming in Binford Blvd until it turned due south to the north I-65-70 junction.
Quote from: Finrod on August 09, 2017, 08:53:04 PM
I remember as a kid back sometime in the 1970s seeing a map of what was supposed to be current and future Indianapolis interstates, and it had I-74 on the southeast side inside I-465, going up Southeastern Ave until it turned due west to the south I-65-70 junction. Same map had I-69 coming in Binford Blvd until it turned due south to the north I-65-70 junction.
hmm, i didnt think 74 was ever proposed to go inside the loop.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 10, 2017, 07:45:52 AM
Quote from: Finrod on August 09, 2017, 08:53:04 PM
I remember as a kid back sometime in the 1970s seeing a map of what was supposed to be current and future Indianapolis interstates, and it had I-74 on the southeast side inside I-465, going up Southeastern Ave until it turned due west to the south I-65-70 junction. Same map had I-69 coming in Binford Blvd until it turned due south to the north I-65-70 junction.
hmm, i didnt think 74 was ever proposed to go inside the loop.
Since I've never seen it anywhere else, I'm wondering if it was added by the mapmaker to catch others copying their maps.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 15, 2017, 12:43:38 AM
I believe at one point, Interstate 465 and 69, US 31, 36, 40, 52, and 421, and IN 37 and 67 are all concurrent. If only concurrencies were signed on I-465...
This is correct, between Exit 46 (US-40) and Exit 47 (US-52) on Indy's east side these routes are all concurrent on I-465. Once I-69 is signed, I would expect SR 37 to be truncated at its junctions with I-69 at both Bloomington and Fishers so the count would go down by one.