More US 31 upgrades between Indy and South Bend

[monty]

296th is going to be interesting. there's a sizable cemetery really close to the intersection and a church.

Yes it is!  I suspect that is why the phase 1 Hamilton Co project stops at 286th. That's also the Tipton County line, so technically it's part of the Tipton plan. I anticipate a bridge-over pushed north away from the church and cemetery. But that doesn't alleviate how close the southbound lanes are to the cemetery. There may be some room to bump the highway a bit east without getting too close to the church building.

[roadman65]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

[silverback1065]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

They're just saying that to get themselves out of making it an interstate and saving money.

[sprjus4]

^ They just need to change the law to permit 65 mph on divided highways, and 70 mph on non-interstate freeways. It would be in line with neighboring states.

But regardless of speeds, the ultimate goal for US-31 between Indianapolis and South Bend should be a 70 mph limited access highway.

[silverback1065]

^ They just need to change the law to permit 65 mph on divided highways, and 70 mph on non-interstate freeways. It would be in line with neighboring states.

everyone already does it anyway 

[sprjus4]

^ They just need to change the law to permit 65 mph on divided highways, and 70 mph on non-interstate freeways. It would be in line with neighboring states.

everyone already does it anyway 

True. And probably much faster, 75-80 mph. Same situation with the 60 mph restriction here in Virginia. But the speed limit should at least be closer to reality, and 65 mph is more reasonable. 70 mph would be ideal even on the non limited access segments, but 65 mph stands more of a political chance.

[I-39]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

They're just saying that to get themselves out of making it an interstate and saving money.

At this point, it's only fair to upgrade US 31 into an Interstate. They let the cat out of the bag by building I-69. Not that I'm necessarily in support of it, but why should South Bend be the only corner of Indians without an Interstate?

[sparker]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

According to the INDOT blurb, the aim is (a) to have a functional freeway north from Indy to Kokomo, done in phases (up to 286th first; north of there later), but (b) from that point north a mixed facility with some sort of either J-turn, Michigan Lefts, or similar methods to address cross traffic from major arteries and feeders.  The document as supplied basically reiterates what they were proposing back in 2018, particularly in the segment from Kokomo north to US 24 (Grissom Field territory), where "intersection treatment" is rife (and no indication that they're going to limit private access along this stretch).  Now -- from previous posts here, it seemed like there had been serious "blowback" in Miami County regarding the addition of intersection convolutions, and that the residents there preferred either maintaining the status quo or constructing a full freeway -- no interim "solutions" -- but if the document is both correct and current, INDOT has basically ignored the protestations and pushed forward with plans resembling the original configurations.   As they have freely admitted that the "free flow" plans they plan to implement are being done so primarily for the cost savings over a full freeway, it's likely that these plans are far from a fait accompli; equally likely is the possibility that the local residents affected by these plans will complain to their local state representatives, which could well place said plans back up in the air. 

There are quite a few parties that have in the past few decades pressed for a full freeway from Indy to South Bend, but INDOT has seen fit to keep pushing interim measures instead, opting for a "quick fix" rather than the alternate approach of making full upgrades section by section until it's done once and for all, even if over a longer developmental horizon.  Maybe the I-69 projects south of Indy are all they can handle, cost-wise, for the present -- but putting money into facility configurations that may turn out to be quite temporary due to political and user complaints just doesn't seem to be the wisest deployment of resources.  It leads me to wonder just who within or connected to INDOT is pushing for this short-term "free flow" solution; it doesn't seem to come from any parties along the corridor itself.   

[tdindy88]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

They're just saying that to get themselves out of making it an interstate and saving money.

At this point, it's only fair to upgrade US 31 into an Interstate. They let the cat out of the bag by building I-69. Not that I'm necessarily in support of it, but why should South Bend be the only corner of Indians without an Interstate?

South Bend does have Interstates 80 and 90, they are tolled of course but still interstates.

[I-39]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

They're just saying that to get themselves out of making it an interstate and saving money.

At this point, it's only fair to upgrade US 31 into an Interstate. They let the cat out of the bag by building I-69. Not that I'm necessarily in support of it, but why should South Bend be the only corner of Indians without an Interstate?

South Bend does have Interstates 80 and 90, they are tolled of course but still interstates.

I'm sorry, I meant a N/S interstate to the state capitol. Every corner of the state will have one when I-69 is completed except the North central/South Bend region.

[NWI_Irish96]

According to INDOT they are just creating what they call a free flow highway which in their minds is equal to travel on a freeway.
https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Considering Indiana law only allows a posted speed limit of 60 mph on expressways and freeways in the Hoosier State can have a 70 mph max if it's an interstate and a 65 mph speed zone if it's state or US designated, the freeway has an advantage still over a free flow.

So their logic is twisted.

According to the INDOT blurb, the aim is (a) to have a functional freeway north from Indy to Kokomo, done in phases (up to 286th first; north of there later), but (b) from that point north a mixed facility with some sort of either J-turn, Michigan Lefts, or similar methods to address cross traffic from major arteries and feeders.  The document as supplied basically reiterates what they were proposing back in 2018, particularly in the segment from Kokomo north to US 24 (Grissom Field territory), where "intersection treatment" is rife (and no indication that they're going to limit private access along this stretch).  Now -- from previous posts here, it seemed like there had been serious "blowback" in Miami County regarding the addition of intersection convolutions, and that the residents there preferred either maintaining the status quo or constructing a full freeway -- no interim "solutions" -- but if the document is both correct and current, INDOT has basically ignored the protestations and pushed forward with plans resembling the original configurations.   As they have freely admitted that the "free flow" plans they plan to implement are being done so primarily for the cost savings over a full freeway, it's likely that these plans are far from a fait accompli; equally likely is the possibility that the local residents affected by these plans will complain to their local state representatives, which could well place said plans back up in the air. 

There are quite a few parties that have in the past few decades pressed for a full freeway from Indy to South Bend, but INDOT has seen fit to keep pushing interim measures instead, opting for a "quick fix" rather than the alternate approach of making full upgrades section by section until it's done once and for all, even if over a longer developmental horizon.  Maybe the I-69 projects south of Indy are all they can handle, cost-wise, for the present -- but putting money into facility configurations that may turn out to be quite temporary due to political and user complaints just doesn't seem to be the wisest deployment of resources.  It leads me to wonder just who within or connected to INDOT is pushing for this short-term "free flow" solution; it doesn't seem to come from any parties along the corridor itself.   

I've driven US 31 from Plymouth to Indy many times in my life. Way too many. The section from Plymouth to just north of Peru is fine as is. Maybe a couple J turns at the busiest intersections is all it needs. Peru to Kokomo and Kokomo to Tipton could certainly benefit from a full freeway upgrade.

Do I think it would be cool to have an interstate running from Indy-South Bend? Yes. Do I think it's necessary, or at least more important than 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70? Absolutely not.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From US 24 north to Peru would arguably be the most readily upgradable segment; the geometry's there, and what private access there is could either be dealt with by frontage roads or shunted to the nearest local road.  It's north and south of Kokomo that's problematic due to uncontrolled access and the fact that the present facility was simply either laid atop the original 2-lane highway or is the product of twinning.  INDOT seems more than willing to, with a few projects over a short time span, build a full freeway from Indy to Kokomo; connecting that city to the state capital by freeway appears to have been prioritized if not expedited.  But either north or south of there, particularly in Miami County, the projects simply won't be cheap nor easy; a lot of property would have to be acquired (which the "free flow" non-freeway method would mostly circumvent) and the construction would probably be disruptive to both local and US 31 traffic.  And that's probably more than INDOT can stomach right now -- hence, why unpopular interim measures are still in process.  Maybe they should tackle the "low-lying-fruit" first; complete things north to Kokomo, since that was already in the works, then address Peru-Plymouth, leaving the Miami County mess for last. 

[I-39]

Do I think it would be cool to have an interstate running from Indy-South Bend? Yes. Do I think it's necessary, or at least more important than 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70? Absolutely not.

I agree, but with the construction of I-69, I guarantee you Kokomo, South Bend and the communities along US 31 are going to get cranky with InDOT over their unwillingness to make US 31 fully Interstate-grade when they have Interstates going in every other direction from Indianapolis. It's kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

[NWI_Irish96]

Do I think it would be cool to have an interstate running from Indy-South Bend? Yes. Do I think it's necessary, or at least more important than 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70? Absolutely not.

I agree, but with the construction of I-69, I guarantee you Kokomo, South Bend and the communities along US 31 are going to get cranky with InDOT over their unwillingness to make US 31 fully Interstate-grade when they have Interstates going in every other direction from Indianapolis. It's kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

Except that Bloomington-Evansville didn't have a 4 lane highway at all, so when they built it from scratch, might as well make it a freeway. South Bend-Kokomo already has a 4 lane highway, so the need isn't as urgent.

Other than the 7 Saturdays a year that Notre Dame has home games, I've never, ever been unable to set my cruise at 10 over going between South Bend and Kokomo. Going between Merrillville and Lafayette on I-65, you're lucky if you can go 10 over for more than a couple miles before coming up on a truck in the left lane passing a truck in the right lane.

[I-39]

Do I think it would be cool to have an interstate running from Indy-South Bend? Yes. Do I think it's necessary, or at least more important than 6-laning the rest of I-65 and I-70? Absolutely not.

I agree, but with the construction of I-69, I guarantee you Kokomo, South Bend and the communities along US 31 are going to get cranky with InDOT over their unwillingness to make US 31 fully Interstate-grade when they have Interstates going in every other direction from Indianapolis. It's kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

Except that Bloomington-Evansville didn't have a 4 lane highway at all, so when they built it from scratch, might as well make it a freeway. South Bend-Kokomo already has a 4 lane highway, so the need isn't as urgent.

Other than the 7 Saturdays a year that Notre Dame has home games, I've never, ever been unable to set my cruise at 10 over going between South Bend and Kokomo. Going between Merrillville and Lafayette on I-65, you're lucky if you can go 10 over for more than a couple miles before coming up on a truck in the left lane passing a truck in the right lane.

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area? Not really. I agree upgrading 31 to an Interstate is not really needed, but I-69 really wasn't needed either, yet they built it. So it's kind of hypocritical to deny South Bend an Interstate connection to Indianapolis when you gave every other area of the state one.

You are absolutely correct about I-65, it should have been 6 laned throughout the state before ANY work was done on either I-69 or US 31. It is an absolute mess. Finishing it should be the top priority for InDOT for this decade.

[sprjus4]

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area? Not really.

Except unlike Indianapolis and South Bend, not even a 4 lane divided highway existed between the two cities (Bloomington and Evansville), let alone any adequate routes. The construction of a four lane divided highway between the cities was warranted at minimum, and because it was apart of this I-69 corridor concept, why not just simply build it to interstate standards? And there came I-69 in southern Indiana.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Starting on or after July 26th, work will begin on the bridge over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad in Tipton County. Construction on the actual bridge won't start until Spring 2022, and the completion date is Fall 2023.

[hbelkins]

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area?

Were the conversions of the I-24/Purchase Parkway and WK Parkway/Pennyrile Parkway interchanges really needed? No, but they were not Kentucky-specific projects, just as the construction of I-69 was not an Indiana-specific project. Same could be said of Union City, Tenn. Does that town need a third bypass? This is to be a multi-state corridor.

[I-39]

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area?

Were the conversions of the I-24/Purchase Parkway and WK Parkway/Pennyrile Parkway interchanges really needed? No, but they were not Kentucky-specific projects, just as the construction of I-69 was not an Indiana-specific project. Same could be said of Union City, Tenn. Does that town need a third bypass? This is to be a multi-state corridor.

I know, but I-69 wasn't needed period. It's the biggest political pork project out there today.

[NWI_Irish96]

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area?

Were the conversions of the I-24/Purchase Parkway and WK Parkway/Pennyrile Parkway interchanges really needed? No, but they were not Kentucky-specific projects, just as the construction of I-69 was not an Indiana-specific project. Same could be said of Union City, Tenn. Does that town need a third bypass? This is to be a multi-state corridor.

I know, but I-69 wasn't needed period. It's the biggest political pork project out there today.

I think we're all saying different things.

Indiana needed a new terrain four lane highway from Bloomington to Evansville, so it might as well have been a freeway. As to whether it needed to be called I-69 or whether the other freeway sections needed to get built is a separate issue.

[sprjus4]

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area?

Were the conversions of the I-24/Purchase Parkway and WK Parkway/Pennyrile Parkway interchanges really needed? No, but they were not Kentucky-specific projects, just as the construction of I-69 was not an Indiana-specific project. Same could be said of Union City, Tenn. Does that town need a third bypass? This is to be a multi-state corridor.

I know, but I-69 wasn't needed period. It's the biggest political pork project out there today.

Sorry, but nope.

[Terry Shea]

Yes, but was an Interstate needed between Evansville and Bloomington over a predominately rural area?

Were the conversions of the I-24/Purchase Parkway and WK Parkway/Pennyrile Parkway interchanges really needed? No, but they were not Kentucky-specific projects, just as the construction of I-69 was not an Indiana-specific project. Same could be said of Union City, Tenn. Does that town need a third bypass? This is to be a multi-state corridor.

I know, but I-69 wasn't needed period. It's the biggest political pork project out there today.

Apparently you don't know your pork!

[monty]

At a US 31 Coalition function early in Gov. Holcomb's first term the president of the Coalition spoke that he is looking forward to the day that he can set his cruise control between Indy and South Bend and never stop the entire distance. The governor took that to heart, but his state highway commissioner(s) took the initiative to eliminate the  corridor's stoplights and railroads but INDOT never committed to interstate standard design for the full corridor. Certainly cost savings have played a large role in eliminating "stop points"  cheaply during a time when highway funds are tight, thus honoring the governor's reciprocal pledge without breaking the highway budget.  Neither INDOT nor the Coalition have promoted the corridor as a designated interstate corridor.  The Coalition's mission is for the entire corridor to South Bend be upgraded to freeway quality. 

The conversion to full freeway from I465 through Hamilton County appears readily apparent by INDOT public action and active projects.  Tipton County is going back to yet another INDOT study but also seems likely to attain upgrades to freeway status in the foreseeable future. Beyond that, there is much to debate. 

[I-39]

I know, but I-69 wasn't needed period. It's the biggest political pork project out there today.

Sorry, but nope.

Sorry, but yes. I-69 is incredibly redundant with existing interstates, it serves no purpose.

Indiana needed a new terrain four lane highway from Bloomington to Evansville, so it might as well have been a freeway.

No they didn't. No offense, but Evansville is not important enough to justify a full fledged freeway/interstate. I suppose a four lane would have been ok, but if South Bend is not worthy of an Interstate connection to Indianapolis, then Evansville isn't either.

[sprjus4]

Sorry, but yes. I-69 is incredibly redundant with existing interstates, it serves no purpose.

More direct than existing interstates, and provides redundancy to a very busy corridor. It definitely serves a purpose, at least once fully complete.

Either way, regardless of your opinion, it's being built and mostly already has been complete. Sorry to break it to you 

It's more useful than I-39, for the record.

No they didn't. No offense, but Evansville is not important enough to justify a full fledged freeway/interstate. I suppose a four lane would have been ok, but if South Bend is not worthy of an Interstate connection to Indianapolis, then Evansville isn't either.

No corridor existed between Evansville and Bloomington. They built a new terrain route, and simply built it to full freeway standards. It wasn't much more of an expense to construct it to interstate standards vs. divided highway when it's all new alignment. South Bend to Indianapolis, on the other hand, already exists as a four lane divided highway.