Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dvferyance]

Well, dvferance, I don't think the corridor needs an Interstate designation, even though the 67 designation would fit the grid. I do think the US 31 corridor between Indianapolis and South Bend should be completely freeway, just keep it US 31. After the Interstate binges North Carolina and Texas have gone on, I'm don't think other states should follow their lead. Besides, if the Indianapolis-to-South Bend corridor were to get an Interstate designation, such a designation should continue into Michigan (perhaps to Grand Rapids). I don't think that would be illogical.

I didn't think US 41 in Wisconsin should have become an interstate but it did.

[tdindy88]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

[dvferyance]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

I-55 gets away with that in Memphis.

[ilpt4u]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

I-55 gets away with that in Memphis.

There are numerous examples of current Interstates taking Loop Ramps - I-74&80 in the Quad Cities, I-80 again in NW Indiana, I-76 thru the Ohio TP Double Trumpet, I-76 @ PA TP Valley Forge exit are other prominent examples...but I believe the difference is AASHTO will not christen a new Interstate if the mainline uses a Loop Ramp - hence why KY had to build new Flyovers on the Parkways that became I-69

[NE2]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

I-55 gets away with that in Memphis.

There are numerous examples of current Interstates taking Loop Ramps - I-74&80 in the Quad Cities, I-80 again in NW Indiana, I-76 thru the Ohio TP Double Trumpet, I-76 @ PA TP Valley Forge exit are other prominent examples...but I believe the difference is AASHTO will not christen a new Interstate if the mainline uses a Loop Ramp - hence why KY had to build new Flyovers on the Parkways that became I-69

And Mississippi didn't have to build flyovers.

[Revive 755]

Nor did North Carolina when I-73 got rerouted onto the bypass at Greensboro.

[ilpt4u]

Well, maybe its just a KYTC thing, then 

[hbelkins]

Well, maybe its just a KYTC thing, then 

Trust me, Kentucky would have left the WK/Pennyrile and I-24/Purchase interchanges alone if they could have just signed I-69 and have been done with it. FHWA made signing the interstate contingent on redoing those exits.

[RoadMaster09]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

Interstate or not, it should be reconfigured to eliminate that loop ramp and replace with a 2-lane flyover. I'd also get rid of the cloverleafs up the road with surface streets (replace with diamonds or partial cloverleafs).

[2trailertrucker]

IF the US20/US31 bypass were to be converted to a possible  interstate, I think a lot of bridges would have to be rehabbed due to the lack of shoulders on them. Once you get north of the Indiana Toll Road, then the conversion would require minimal construction.

[NWI_Irish96]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

That should have been done in conjunction with the South Bend-Plymouth upgrade. 

[Echostatic]

[Mods feel free to move this post if it's in the wrong thread]

The project at US31 and 236th Street in Bakers Corner is moving along. Schematics for the plan to remove 7 driveways and two road crossings are available here: https://www.in.gov/indot/files/US%2031%20Interchange%20Exhibits_Feb%202019%20open%20house.pdf

I know the owners of the property at the SW corner of US31 and 236th, so when the state starts the eminent domain process I can find out. Already most of the houses from Division Rd. to Kokomo have been bought out, so the state can remove a lot of driveways in the next few years.

[SSR_317]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

That should have been done in conjunction with the South Bend-Plymouth upgrade.

It was originally planned to do so, but as usual, INDOT took the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" way out and cut that from the budget.

[silverback1065]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

That should have been done in conjunction with the South Bend-Plymouth upgrade.

It was originally planned to do so, but as usual, INDOT took the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" way out and cut that from the budget.

yup was supposed to be a flyover. it's substandard approaching the exit too.

[Henry]

Something to consider as well on any potential interstate conversion along US 31, the interchange with US 20 in South Bend would have to be reconfigured since US 31 north has to follow a loop ramp onto the US 20/US 31 bypass. I'm sure INDOT would be in no hurry to do to it what they had to do down in Kentucky at a couple of the new I-69 interchanges with various parkways.

That should have been done in conjunction with the South Bend-Plymouth upgrade.

It was originally planned to do so, but as usual, INDOT took the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" way out and cut that from the budget.

yup was supposed to be a flyover. it's substandard approaching the exit too.

Even if it's not going to be I-67 (which would be the most ideal corridor, as it's between I-65 and I-69), there needs to be a correction for the interchange that will show US 31 as the through route, and a flyover would be the most ideal way to get it done. Land issues might prevent this, but it's well worth a try.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Looking at GSV, the street overcrossing of US 31 immediately south of the US 20 cloverleaf would have to be torn down and extended (it seems pretty short as it is currently constructed) in order to accommodate the divergence point of a NB>WB flyover; that same bridge would require extension on its west end as well to accommodate a higher-speed EB>SB direct ramp.  It looks like a 2-lane ramp and its merge could be accommodated within the footprint of the US 20/31 ROW.  It also appears that US 31 was "squeezed" into a narrow footprint south of the interchange; this includes the foreshortened overpass.  All that was likely done not so much to inhibit future US 31 upgrades (potentially to Interstate-grade) but as a money-saving measure.  It's probably not necessary to configure US 31 as the through route, as long as there are reasonably high-speed connections available for the throughput of 31.

[JREwing78]

I suspect it's going to be about 30 years before the US-20/31 interchange becomes a real problem. At that point, it will be due for reconstruction. I'd rather see INDOT spend the money right now on removing stoplights and controlling access on other portions of US-30 and US-31.

[triplemultiplex]

^^^^^^^^
Looking at GSV, the street overcrossing of US 31 immediately south of the US 20 cloverleaf would have to be torn down and extended (it seems pretty short as it is currently constructed) in order to accommodate the divergence point of a NB>WB flyover; that same bridge would require extension on its west end as well to accommodate a higher-speed EB>SB direct ramp.

What streetview are you looking at?  That overpass (Jackson Rd) has massive room to accommodate future turbine ramps or better.  It has room for more lanes on the existing thru freeway, plus spans for future carriageways outside of that; plenty of room for all the merging one would need to upgrade that interchange at some point in the future.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Looking at GSV, the street overcrossing of US 31 immediately south of the US 20 cloverleaf would have to be torn down and extended (it seems pretty short as it is currently constructed) in order to accommodate the divergence point of a NB>WB flyover; that same bridge would require extension on its west end as well to accommodate a higher-speed EB>SB direct ramp.

What streetview are you looking at?  That overpass (Jackson Rd) has massive room to accommodate future turbine ramps or better.  It has room for more lanes on the existing thru freeway, plus spans for future carriageways outside of that; plenty of room for all the merging one would need to upgrade that interchange at some point in the future.

Turbine-style ramps, yeah -- I was thinking more along the lines of a flyover expediting the NB 31 movement; to stay within the ROW along 20/31 just west of the present interchange, it would have to diverge from the NB 31 carriageway somewhat south of Jackson Road, necessitating the widening of the overpass.  And as long as the bridge is being rebuilt, do a similar thing with the west side so the SB 31 movement could be straightened out to accommodate a 2-lane ramp of relatively high speed -- so as not to duplicate the mistake Caltrans made out here in CA with the NB movement of I-215 in Riverside -- SB has a nice high-speed 2-lane ramp, but they "chickened out" with NB, staying within the profile of the original and decidedly underpowered direct ramp.  However, 15 years after the original interchange revamp, it looks like they actually bought and cleared some adjacent properties to alleviate this issue.  Just hoping when and if an upgrade of the 20/31 interchange is in the planning stages that at least maintaining reasonable speed through the interchange is a consideration -- in both directions!

[monty]

Recently learned that the bridges over the NSRR north of the SR 28 interchange has been delayed by a year (again).  Also that project will shift to the west, with the current northbound set of lanes becoming a frontage road for the residences on the east side of the highway, north of the railroad. 

[silverback1065]

Recently learned that the bridges over the NSRR north of the SR 28 interchange has been delayed by a year (again).  Also that project will shift to the west, with the current northbound set of lanes becoming a frontage road for the residences on the east side of the highway, north of the railroad.

Do you know why are they delaying it? 

[royo6022]

Regardless of what 'should' or 'shouldn't' be changed about US-31 north of Indy, it has needed help for many years. The further north you travel the worse the conditions are. The last thing we should think about now is modifying it. I think the removal of stoplights for a longer stretched US highway is a good thing and that it should be done (within reason) in more areas throughout the state.

However, in other places, such as certain towns, it can be a little confusing and difficult to completely remove all stoplights from a road just to make it "quicker and easier". I have seen in Evansville where they have been doing tedious construction to remove stoplights from the Lloyd Expressway. While this seems like it may make the bypassing of Evansville quite easier and much faster, it has the potential to confuse people turning off of the Lloyd on the east side of town where there are multiple large intersections and not much signage informing drivers from out of town or those unfamiliar with the area which roads are where, or where something is located.

It's just something you have to look out for, and with US-31 I think leaving the original route how it is while some touch-ups (such as the removal of stoplights) hopefully start to improve traffic conditions over the next few years.

[The Ghostbuster]

How many stoplights are left on US 31 between Indianapolis and South Bend? I don't think any stoplights should be on a four-lane express highway like US 31 (I know here in Wisconsin, there are at least two stoplights on US 12 between Sauk City and Middleton).

[monty]

There are five stoplights left between Indy and South Bend. Bakers Corner, Division Road, SR 18, SR 218 and just north of US 24.

I’m not sure why the delay on the RR bridges but I know the ground is quite marshy - and that bore samples have indicated some stability issues to the north of the tracks.

[triplemultiplex]

How many stoplights are left on US 31 between Indianapolis and South Bend? I don't think any stoplights should be on a four-lane express highway like US 31 (I know here in Wisconsin, there are at least two stoplights on US 12 between Sauk City and Middleton).

It's 3.
CTH K
WI 19 east
CTK P

4 if you count the one at WI 78 south.