Indiana Notes

[silverback1065]

speaking of US 31, the railroad tracks north of SR 28 will be bridged relatively soon. 

[mukade]

US 31 is at least four lanes from Indianapolis all the way through Columbus and gets a good amount of traffic.

Yes, but remember INDOT is all about highways that serve intercity traffic. Keystone Parkway was and is a busy road, but it is now maintained by Carmel. South Street west of I-65 in Lafayette is another of many examples.

Also, why should there be two N-S state roads serving local traffic between I-65 and I-69?

South of Columbus it's important to a lot of small towns along the route like Reddington, Crothersville, Uniontown, Austin, Scottsburg, and Memphis.  Obviously once you get to Sellersburg you get into the Louisville suburbs.

Again, going back to the unsubstantiated SR 931 rumor, INDOT would still serve all or most of these small cities. It would just not necessarily be US 31 or one continuous route. It is all speculation, but that would be the rationale.

INDOT doesn't just force roads back to local control.  It's generally negotiated with the cities/counties involved and usually involves a lump sum payment from INDOT to the jurisdiction to cover the added costs of maintaining the road. 

I agree that it is negotiated. Even if the US 31 road itself is in good shape (which I think much of it is - at least in Indy and Greenwood), INDOT entices cities with grants to improve other roads in addition to the lump sum. I would think that at least Columbus, Greenwood, and Franklin might be tempted with a deal like that. If you consider the number of turnbacks, local jurisdictions must see the value or they would not have happened. Kokomo took over SR 22 thru town for that sort of deal - I am not sure any of the funds will go toward improving the old SR 22 route itself.

[silverback1065]

usually when INDOT slaps a 9 in front of a route, it usually means it's low priority, or they really really want to get rid of it, but the locals refuse.  INDOT really wants to rid themselves of SR 930 and Kokomo's 931.  And it sure seems like they hate 912 as well. 

[US 41]

The truck driver that tried to cross the iron bridge in Paoli was a woman (of course haha). Here's a link to a news story that was released this morning.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/paoli-bridge-collapse/2015/12/28/id/707260/

[Pete from Boston]

The truck driver that tried to cross the iron bridge in Paoli was a woman (of course haha).

And comments on online articles are flooded with this same dumb joke.  It's nearly 2016, let's grow up a little. 

[mukade]

Rerouting US 31 onto I-65 or any other parallel US highway for that matter is the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Why would anyone think rerouting US 31 onto I-65 is a good idea? If that's a good idea maybe we should just get rid of US highways altogether or just decommission US 31 from Indy to Mobile.

Why is it a good idea to have it designated US 31 when no one uses it for long distance travel? Let's say someone wnated to travel from Ludington, Michigan to Louisville, Kentucky and wanted to take US 31 the whole way. Would it be better if US 31 followed I-65 or remained stretches that are a congested commercial strips or are a slow, narrow, winding road? If the route number means anything, it should be with I-65.

In Indiana, there are many examples of Interstate and US highway overlaps:
- I-70 and US 40 in Terre Haute
- I-74 and US 421 from Greensburg to Indy
- I-65 and US 52
- I-80/94 and US 6 thru Lake County
- All the many I-465 concurrencies

So there is a lot of precedent even here. In Michigan, I-196 and US 31 are concurrent for 44 miles. I-39 and US 51 are concurrent in Illinois for around 117 miles. If US 31 ended in Indiana, it could be decommissioned in southern Indiana much like US 66, US 460 in southern Indiana, or US 16 in Michigan were. US 150 in Indiana is another fairly useless designation but it exists in bordering states so it stays.

[silverback1065]

Rerouting US 31 onto I-65 or any other parallel US highway for that matter is the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Why would anyone think rerouting US 31 onto I-65 is a good idea? If that's a good idea maybe we should just get rid of US highways altogether or just decommission US 31 from Indy to Mobile.

Why is it a good idea to have it designated US 31 when no one uses it for long distance travel? Let's say someone wnated to travel from Ludington, Michigan to Louisville, Kentucky and wanted to take US 31 the whole way. Would it be better if US 31 followed I-65 or remained stretches that are a congested commercial strips or are a slow, narrow, winding road? If the route number means anything, it should be with I-65.

In Indiana, there are many examples of Interstate and US highway overlaps:
- I-70 and US 40 in Terre Haute
- I-74 and US 421 from Greensburg to Indy
- I-65 and US 52
- I-80/94 and US 6 thru Lake County
- All the many I-465 concurrencies

So there is a lot of precedent even here. In Michigan, I-196 and US 31 are concurrent for 44 miles. I-39 and US 51 are concurrent in Illinois for around 117 miles. If US 31 ended in Indiana, it could be decommissioned in southern Indiana much like US 66, US 460 in southern Indiana, or US 16 in Michigan were. US 150 in Indiana is another fairly useless designation but it exists in bordering states so it stays.

Is that why US 460 doesn't exist in Indiana anymore? i thought it went all the way to St. Louis at one time.

[bmeiser]

speaking of US 31, the railroad tracks north of SR 28 will be bridged relatively soon.

Awesome! Where did you hear that?

[silverback1065]

speaking of US 31, the railroad tracks north of SR 28 will be bridged relatively soon.

Awesome! Where did you hear that?

Meeting at work today, my boss mentioned it, he didn't have specifics in terms of a completion date, but it's in the very early phases of design.  INDOT has just started the process of choosing the companies that will do the work. 

[mukade]

The overpass would be a welcome improvement. The Bakers Corner stoplight removal would hopefully also be in the plans.

Regarding the previous topic of US 31 being re-routed, in case you haven't read "History of the Interstate System in Indiana: Volume 1 - Chapters I-IV: Development of the National Program" by David Alan Ripple from 1975, you can get some good insights on how the Indiana Interstates came to be the way they were ultimately built. The URLs are:

History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 1
History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 2
History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 3 part 2
History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 4

The following quote is from volume 3:

Interstate Route 64
The Interstate 64 corridor parallels US 60 from Norfolk, Virginia, to Louisville, Kentucky; however, because the traditionally recognized major routing from Louisville to St. Louis was composed of US 150 from Louisville to Shoals and US 50 from Shoals to St. Louis, Interstate 64 was initially designated as paralleling the traditional routing. Due to the size of the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area, Interstate 64 could have been moved northward to cross the Ohio River near Cincinnati and to parallel US 50 to St. Louis; however, the introduction of Interstate 71 between Cincinnati and Louisville forced Interstate 64 farther south on US 60 through Lexington, Frankfort and Louisville.

Interstate 64 passes through sparsely populated areas of Illinois and Indiana and might not have been extended from Louisville to St. Louis in the Interstate inception stage of the early 1940's if Indiana had not promoted such an extension. From a national standpoint, the route probably could have terminated at Louisville with little opposition. In fact, Interstate 64 from Louisville to St. Louis was one of the few Interstates east of the Mississippi River that was originally designated for construction with only two lanes.

The State of Illinois for some years had planned to build a four-lane divided highway to replace inadequate US 50 from East St. Louis to Vincennes. The intervention of World War II delayed such reconstruction and the possibility of similar reconstruction in Indiana. Consequently, US 50-150, being a part of the strategic highway network, further deteriorated during the war. Before US 50-150 became a part of the Interstate System in 1947, Indiana had envisioned a new US 50 from Vincennes to Cincinnati. On the basis of US 50 development studies by Illinois and Indiana, plans for a toll bridge that was to link Mt. Vernon and New Haven were shifted to the north of Vincennes to serve new US 50. When legislation placed emphasis on the Interstates, the US 50 plans came to be utilized for the Interstate Route from Louisville to St. Louis. The improvement of US 50 all the way to Cincinnati was irrelevant to the Interstate Program. Thus, the normal sequence of upgrading US 50 in the Vincennes area became the construction of Interstate 64.

Construction contracts were let to four-lane US 50, Interstate 64, from Vincennes to Lawrenceville in 1956 and 1957. On April 7, 1958 Illinois and Indiana submitted an agreement to the Bureau of Public Roads covering the con- struction of the Interstate 64 bridge over the Wabash River north of Vincennes. The agreement was approved on June 12, 1958 and construction soon began on the bridge. The Wabash River bridge and the relocation of US 50 from Vincennes across the bridge to Lawrenceville was eventually completed and dedicated as a part of the Interstate System; however, these improvements ultimately became a part of the US 50 bypass of Vincennes rather than a part of the final location of Interstate 64.

Shifting Corridors
Because of the necessity to meet the Bureau of Public Roads deadline of January 1, 1957 for the submission of all general Interstate route alignments, the Indiana State Highway Commission submitted strip maps of US 50-150 from Vincennes to New Albany for the proposed alignment of Interstate 64. Plans had been developed to upgrade US 50 in the Vincennes area, and US 50-150 had been the general corridor for Interstate 64 since the 1940's.

To gain informal approval of the route by the Bureau of Public Roads, Indiana agreed as soon as possible after June 30, 1957 (the date of formal approval of all routes to be included in the Interstate System) to begin comparative studies with a more direct alignment between Vincennes and New Albany. The initial alignment studied was a straight line from New Albany to Vincennes which passed about ten miles south of Washington.

When local interests heard of the consideration of several alternatives (particularly more southern alternatives) in the development of a more detailed alignment, they began to develop information and to lobby in support of an alternative through their area. The local Chambers of Commerce and civic groups formed two major factions, one favoring the originally designated alignment through Vincennes, and the other favoring a southern alignment closer to Evansville.

In the spring of 1957, Evansville interest groups attempted to enlist the support of Southern Illinois Incorporated (an association of community development groups) to promote the shifting of Interstate 64 southward from US 50 in Illinois and US 150 in Indiana. At a meeting of Southern Indiana Incorporated (an association of community development groups which represented both Vincennes and Evansville) on October 30, 1957, Governor Handley of Indiana announced that Illinois and Indiana were considering the shift of Interstate 64 southward to serve a greater number of people. The supporters of the original alignment formed the St. Louis - Vincennes - Louisville Interstate Highway Committee on November 17, 1957, to promote their interests. On February 12, 1958, Governor Handley formally announced the moving of Interstate 64 to the southern alignment.

Original Location Proponents - The interests favoring the original alignment were slower to organize than those favoring the southern alignment. Because construction had already begun on Interstate 64 in the Vincennes area, the shifting of the route had not seemed possible. Nevertheless, the shifting of the route southward resulted in the formation of vocal interest groups bitterly opposed to the shift.

The arguments for the original location centered on the possibility of economic loss if the southern alignment was built. If the Interstate were shifted south, US 50-150 might not be developed as a four-lane divided highway from Vincennes to Louisville or Vincennes to Cincinnati. Because Interstate 64 on the southern alignment would divert through traffic from US 50-150, highway-oriented business on US 50-150 would lose patronage. The failure to improve US 50-150 would retard all development.

The original location proponents also contended that the southern route would not serve the best interests of a majority of the urban areas in Indiana, that industrial and commercial activities of Evansville were geared to a north-south axis not an east-west axis from St. Louis to Louisville, that Interstate 64 was not far enough south to adequately serve Evansville, and that the original location would better serve its population area than the southern route would serve its population area. Since traffic volumes were heavier on US 50 than US 460, the original alignment of Interstate 64 would better serve existing travel demands.

Although the Interstate System was to serve defense installations, the southern alignment of Interstate 64 would provide inadequate service to the Crane Naval Depot. The relocation of Interstate 64 to the south would delay completion of Interstate 64 and cost Indiana more money due to the greater length in Indiana. Cities on the northern route claimed to have adequate facilities to serve the traveling public (emergency facilities, resturants, motels, garages and gas stations), while the southern alignment lacked these facilities.

Southern Route Proponents - The primary contention of the southern alignment proponents was that Evansville would be one of the few metropolitan areas in- the United States excluded from the Interstate System. The May of 1958 report by the Evansville faction summarized their arguments as follows:
"The communities and related counties in southern Indiana and southern Illinois believe that the more southerly relocation, as close to the Ohio River as is consistent with sound engineering and reasonable cost, will more properly integrate this east-west road into the National System of Interstate Highways, will better serve the requirement of our country's defense in case of a national emergency, and will, at the same time, allow for a vastly improved service to the, present and potential economies in both areas".

The southern route proponents felt Interstate 64 should be relocated to the south to serve the greater population, the greater present and potential manufacturing production and capability, the greater present and potential manufacturing work force, the greater present and potential agricultural production and capability, the greater present and potential production of prime natural resources, the greater existing State road mileage, the greater vehicle registration, and the greater wholesale trade of the counties within twenty miles of the southern location as compared to the same for the northern location.

Evansville had been an area of chronic labor surplus for many years. The east-west route near the Ohio River was essential to continued manufacturing growth along the Ohio River. At the time, there was still a possibility that Interstate 24 from Nashville to St. Louis might come through Evansville; in such a case, the southern location of Interstate 64 would make Interstate 24 shorter. Although Interstate 64 through Vincennes was closer to the Crane Naval Depot, it would not serve the defense related industries in the Evansville area. One fact of major importance was that the southern location of Interstate 64 would not replace an existing major east-west route; whereas, the northern location would replace an existing primary east-west route resulting in duplication.

Comparison of Route Alternatives - In 1957, Indiana and Illinois began to develop more detailed locations for Interstate 64. Due to the proximity of Interstate 64 to Interstate 70, Illinois proceeded to study a more southerly corridor on a more direct line from St. Louis to Louisville which crossed the Indiana- Illinois State Line between Mt. Carmel and New Harmony. Indiana followed suit and eventually made made an economic comparison of the original alignment from New Albany to Vincennes (north line) with the alternate alignment from New Albany to Grayville (south line). The economic comparison of the north and south line revealed that the south line was preferable on all points of comparison within Indiana.

Population Density. Referring to Figure 73 t p. 603, the study area for each line was a forty- mile corridor with the common area excluded. No portion of Illinois or the Louisville Metropolitan Area was included; however, parts of Kentucky that fell in the corridor were included. The population densities were 56 persons per square-mile for the area served only by the north line, 36 persons per square-mile for the......  (starting at page 501)

Interstate Route 65
The Interstate 65 corridor as initially designated followed US 31 from Louisville to Indianapolis, US 52 from Indianapolis to Kentland, and US 41 from Kentland to the Chicago Metropolitan Area.  (page 529)

[Lyon Wonder]

IMO, if I-64 was built on it's originally proposed alignment along US 50 in IL and IN, I think US 460 in IL would have been eventually upgraded to a 4-lane expressway from East St Louis to Mt Vernon and I-69's alignment in IN from US 50 south toward Evansville could have been built earlier as part of I-164, though I also think US 41 from Vincennes south to Evansville might have been chosen to become I-164 had I-64 followed US 50.

[US 41]

IMO, if I-64 was built on it's originally proposed alignment along US 50 in IL and IN, I think US 460 in IL would have been eventually upgraded to a 4-lane expressway from East St Louis to Mt Vernon and I-69's alignment in IN from US 50 at Washington south toward Evansville could have been built earlier as part of I-164, though US 41 from Vincennessouth to Evansville might have been chosen to become I-164 had I-64 followed US 50.

INDOT wanted an I-63 from Brazil to Evansville in 1968 according to the AARoads Indiana I-70 information page.

Quote: In 1968, INDOT unsuccessfully lobbied for an Interstate 63 corridor leading south from the Brazil area to Evansville to provide a route between Indianapolis and southwest Indiana. Construction of Interstate 164 was a result of that original proposal.

[Lyon Wonder]

IMO, if I-64 was built on it's originally proposed alignment along US 50 in IL and IN, I think US 460 in IL would have been eventually upgraded to a 4-lane expressway from East St Louis to Mt Vernon and I-69's alignment in IN from US 50 at Washington south toward Evansville could have been built earlier as part of I-164, though US 41 from Vincennessouth to Evansville might have been chosen to become I-164 had I-64 followed US 50.

INDOT wanted an I-63 from Brazil to Evansville in 1968 according to the AARoads Indiana I-70 information page.

Quote: In 1968, INDOT unsuccessfully lobbied for an Interstate 63 corridor leading south from the Brazil area to Evansville to provide a route between Indianapolis and southwest Indiana. Construction of Interstate 164 was a result of that original proposal.

Had I-63 been built between Evansville and I-70, I-69's current alignment south of Indy would have probably never been built and I-63 would be incorporated into I-69 via I-70.

[silverback1065]

INDOT Press Release:

State to Invest $50 Million to Improve I-465/I-69 Interchange on Indy's Northeast Side
INDOT Requesting Proposals to Reconfigure Heavily Traveled Interchange to Ease Congestion
INDIANAPOLIS — Governor Mike Pence announced today that the State will invest an estimated $50 million to reconfigure the busy I-465/I-69 interchange on the northeast side of Indianapolis. The project will ease congestion, improve safety, and reduce travel time in the heavily traveled corridor used by more than 165,000 drivers each day.
"Significant growth in Noblesville, Fishers and the northeast side of Indianapolis has created the need to update our highway infrastructure in the area,"  Governor Mike Pence said. "Building this interchange will increase capacity and improve traffic flow. This project, along with recent and planned projects to widen I-69, a scheduled interchange at 106th Street, and the modernization of State Road 37 in Fishers, will dramatically improve the ability of people and commerce to move efficiently in Central Indiana."
The project will include:
-   Building a high-speed, two-lane ramp for traffic exiting I-465 eastbound onto I-69 northbound. The new ramp would bridge over Binford Boulevard and I-465, while the existing low-speed loop ramp would remain for I-465 eastbound traffic exiting I-69 onto 82nd Street in Castleton.
-   Widening I-465 to four travel lanes in each direction between the White River bridge and I-69. In addition, two ramp lanes in each direction would run continuously between the I-69, Allisonville Road and Keystone Avenue interchanges for traffic entering and exiting the interstate.     
The Indiana Department of Transportation this week will publish a formal request for proposals seeking engineering companies interested in designing the project. INDOT expects to begin preliminary design of the project in 2016 with construction anticipated to begin in 2020.
The request for proposals asks consultants to design additional improvements should more funding become available in the future. For more information about INDOT's work to modernize Indiana's transportation infrastructure, visit www.in.gov/indot.
Stay informed
Motorists can learn about highway work zones and other traffic alerts at indot.carsprogram.org, 1-800-261-ROAD (7623) or 511 from a mobile phone.
Subscribe to receive text and email alerts about INDOT projects at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/INDOT/subscriber/new.
Follow @INDOT_ECentral on Twitter at https://twitter.com/INDOT_ECentral and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/INDOTEastCentral.


great news for one of the worst interchanges in the indy area!

[silverback1065]

here's a picture of the proposed interchange:

[bmeiser]

I was just going to post this. It's about damn time! This is desperately needed. There's a bottleneck on 465 after Allisonville where it goes down to 3 lanes and it backs up past Keystone every rush hour. Having at least 4 continuous lanes from 31 all the way through to 70 should clear this up nicely. That EB to NB loop ramp is a joke. It's not made for the capacity and the merging is dangerous.  Too bad we have to wait till 2020

Nexus 7

[Alex]

The overpass would be a welcome improvement. The Bakers Corner stoplight removal would hopefully also be in the plans.

Regarding the previous topic of US 31 being re-routed, in case you haven't read "History of the Interstate System in Indiana: Volume 1 - Chapters I-IV: Development of the National Program" by David Alan Ripple from 1975, you can get some good insights on how the Indiana Interstates came to be the way they were ultimately built. The URLs are:

History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 1
History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 2
History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 3 part 2
History of the Interstate System in Indiana - Purdue e-Pubs - Volume 4

This was a fantastic resource, thanks for both finding it and sharing it here. I read through the section on the northern versus southern alignments of Interstate 64, and updated the Interstate-Guide article on the route accordingly.

[US 41]

I wish I-64 would have went through Vincennes, because it would be a great route to Louisville from Terre Haute. I also think an I-64 paralleling US 50 and 150 would have been better for the state of Indiana. Regionally I think I-64 current route was the best route, but as far as Indiana is concerned I think it would have served more people in Indiana if it would have went through Vincennes. I may be wrong however.

[Lyon Wonder]

I wish I-64 would have went through Vincennes, because it would be a great route to Louisville from Terre Haute. I also think an I-64 paralleling US 50 and 150 would have been better for the state of Indiana. Regionally I think I-64 current route was the best route, but as far as Indiana is concerned I think it would have served more people in Indiana if it would have went through Vincennes. I may be wrong however.

IMO, I-164 would have been located along or near US 41 from Evansville to Vincennes, which would have likely become part of I-69 too, especially since opponents of the existing I-69 corridor were proposing an alternative via US 41 and I-70, which I think would have been chosen for I-69 if I-164 (or even I-63) was already built along the US 41 corridor.

[silverback1065]

I wish I-64 would have went through Vincennes, because it would be a great route to Louisville from Terre Haute. I also think an I-64 paralleling US 50 and 150 would have been better for the state of Indiana. Regionally I think I-64 current route was the best route, but as far as Indiana is concerned I think it would have served more people in Indiana if it would have went through Vincennes. I may be wrong however.

IMO, I-164 would have been located along or near US 41 from Evansville to Vincennes, which would have likely become part of I-69 too, especially since opponents of the existing I-69 corridor were proposing an alternative via US 41 and I-70, which I think would have been chosen for I-69 if I-164 (or even I-63) was already built along the US 41 corridor.

It probably wouldn't have been very hard to turn 41 through town into an interstate either.

[silverback1065]

SR 252 will be decommissioned between i-65 and SR 9 in about 2 yrs, after a major reconstruction project. 

[silverback1065]

The project I mentioned about 31 actually will include a bridge over the RR tracks at 100 S and Division Road will bridge over 31, so pretty soon 2 lights and a RR Xing will be gone in tipton county, sure looks like the kokomo to westfield gap will be filled 1st.

[US 41]

US 41 and SR 163 in Lyford is all messed up now. The speed limit on 163 was 55 and the speed limit on 41 was 40 through Lyford. Now it is 30 on both 41 and 163, which is ridiculously slow. There was a semi that tipped over and killed a girl there and a bunch of people protested and said INDOT should do something about the intersection. Well they did something. They created a huge speed trap. It might be better to reconfigure the Y into a 3 way stop.

[Revive 755]

It probably wouldn't have been very hard to turn 41 through town into an interstate either.

Upgrading US 41 into I-164 was looked at in the EIS stage, but IIRC it was dropped fairly early.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Work is set to begin on major rehabilitation of the Indiana Toll Road. Starting in March, crews will be doing significant improvements on the stretch between Portage and Elkhart. Work includes mainline paving, interchange paving, bridge refurbishments, increased shoulder safety standards, some widening, and even VMS installation. Service plazas will be worked on too, with demolition and rebuilding scheduled from April to August for the Portage and Elkhart plazas, expansion of the Howe plaza, and the complete removal of the easternmost plaza in Steuben County.

This $200 million project is set to last through this year and 2017, and is funded entirely by the lessees of the Toll Road.