Indiana Notes

[nwi_navigator_1181]

In a collaborative effort between INDOT and the City of Crown Point, a major series of projects is set to begin at I-65 and 109th Avenue.

Starting June 1, the entire I-65/109th Avenue interchange will be closed to traffic, as it will be converted from two signalized intersections to a dogbone interchange, similar to what has been done to Indiana 49 and Vale Park Road in Valparaiso and Indiana 2 and US 20 in Rolling Prairie.

As part of this conversion, 109th Avenue will be widened from two to four lanes from I-65 westward to Broadway (Indiana 53); part of the widening has already been completed. Another roundabout will be built east of I-65 at Iowa Street as well. All work is scheduled for completion before Thanksgiving.

Those looking to travel on 109th Street between Broadway and points east of I-65 will be detoured via Broadway, 113th Avenue, and Mississippi Street. Those looking to enter I-65 will be encouraged to use US 231, located south of 109th Avenue.

Outside of the 109th Avenue ramps being closed, I-65 will not be affected by the work.

[pianocello]

In a collaborative effort between INDOT and the City of Crown Point, a major series of projects is set to begin at I-65 and 109th Avenue.

Starting June 1, the entire I-65/109th Avenue interchange will be closed to traffic, as it will be converted from two signalized intersections to a dogbone interchange, similar to what has been done to Indiana 49 and Vale Park Road in Valparaiso and Indiana 2 and US 20 in Rolling Prairie.

As part of this conversion, 109th Avenue will be widened from two to four lanes from I-65 westward to Broadway (Indiana 53); part of the widening has already been completed. Another roundabout will be built east of I-65 at Iowa Street as well. All work is scheduled for completion before Thanksgiving.

Those looking to travel on 109th Street between Broadway and points east of I-65 will be detoured via Broadway, 113th Avenue, and Mississippi Street. Those looking to enter I-65 will be encouraged to use US 231, located south of 109th Avenue.

Outside of the 109th Avenue ramps being closed, I-65 will not be affected by the work.

It's been a while since I've been there, but conversion to a dogbone seems to be the right choice for a quick capacity improvement. Widening 109th Ave or adding extra turn lanes clearly seems to be off the table here, and I know fewer lanes has been a selling point for INDOT in the past for dogbone interchanges (I know that was the main reason they chose that type for the Vale Park Road interchange, probably the same for Rolling Prairie as well).

[NWI_Irish96]

In a collaborative effort between INDOT and the City of Crown Point, a major series of projects is set to begin at I-65 and 109th Avenue.

Starting June 1, the entire I-65/109th Avenue interchange will be closed to traffic, as it will be converted from two signalized intersections to a dogbone interchange, similar to what has been done to Indiana 49 and Vale Park Road in Valparaiso and Indiana 2 and US 20 in Rolling Prairie.

As part of this conversion, 109th Avenue will be widened from two to four lanes from I-65 westward to Broadway (Indiana 53); part of the widening has already been completed. Another roundabout will be built east of I-65 at Iowa Street as well. All work is scheduled for completion before Thanksgiving.

Those looking to travel on 109th Street between Broadway and points east of I-65 will be detoured via Broadway, 113th Avenue, and Mississippi Street. Those looking to enter I-65 will be encouraged to use US 231, located south of 109th Avenue.

Outside of the 109th Avenue ramps being closed, I-65 will not be affected by the work.

It's been a while since I've been there, but conversion to a dogbone seems to be the right choice for a quick capacity improvement. Widening 109th Ave or adding extra turn lanes clearly seems to be off the table here, and I know fewer lanes has been a selling point for INDOT in the past for dogbone interchanges (I know that was the main reason they chose that type for the Vale Park Road interchange, probably the same for Rolling Prairie as well).

This area has had a growth explosion over the past 20 years. The Broadway corridor west of I-65 with commercial development, and Winfield east of I-65 with residential development. The exit itself is fairly recent.

[Revive 755]

It's been a while since I've been there, but conversion to a dogbone seems to be the right choice for a quick capacity improvement. Widening 109th Ave or adding extra turn lanes clearly seems to be off the table here, and I know fewer lanes has been a selling point for INDOT in the past for dogbone interchanges (I know that was the main reason they chose that type for the Vale Park Road interchange, probably the same for Rolling Prairie as well).

Bridge piers wouldn't have stopped Missouri from widening that.

Closing all of the ramps at 109th does not seem like a good idea given how badly overloaded US 30 is around I-65.

[silverback1065]

It's been a while since I've been there, but conversion to a dogbone seems to be the right choice for a quick capacity improvement. Widening 109th Ave or adding extra turn lanes clearly seems to be off the table here, and I know fewer lanes has been a selling point for INDOT in the past for dogbone interchanges (I know that was the main reason they chose that type for the Vale Park Road interchange, probably the same for Rolling Prairie as well).

Bridge piers wouldn't have stopped Missouri from widening that.

Closing all of the ramps at 109th does not seem like a good idea given how badly overloaded US 30 is around I-65.

the reason why 109th isn't 4 lanes under 65 is because it wasn't worth rebuilding the 65 overpass. it's a fairly recent bridge and is in very good condition. it just wasn't worth the money to do the bridge too. perhaps if 109th ave. was a state road they would have. also i believe that is exactly what they are doing with 1 of the 3 lanes around the pier.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

On or after June 10, work will formally commence on the US 12/20 realignment project in the Miller (Gary) area. US 12 will be closed from Old Hobart Road to the current split west of Clay Street. During this time, three signals along what will be Old US 12 will be removed: the signal at the split, the four way stop at Clay Street, and the signal at Lake Street.

During this time, new pavement will be built for the new split just east of Lake Street, along with a new traffic signal. Along the realigned stretch, new sidewalks will be installed, along with decorative lighting and pedestrian access points.

As previously noted, this realignment is designed to accommodate the South Shore Line double track project, spanning from Gary to Michigan City. This will also include a revamped Miller station and enhanced parking.

The official detour calls for traffic to use US 20 and Indiana 249 to connect to US 12. However, the locals can use County Line Road or Old Hobart Road to connect to US 12. Long-range drivers may want to consider using I-94 (or even the Toll Road) to skip the work zone.

The realignment is scheduled for mid-September completion.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Another shorter-term closure is set for US 12/20 next week, but west of I-65. The CSS-SB railroad crossing (the line that goes from the yard adjacent to US 12/20 to the IHB Line just north of the South Shore Line) will be repaired and replaced. All work is scheduled to be done within that week only. The official detour calls for traffic to use I-65, I-80/94, and Broadway. However, non-truck traffic can get by using 15th Avenue.

Another intersection improvement project is in progress along Indiana 130, at Porter County Road 600 North (just east of the County Line Road intersection). While the complete details are not yet known, I do know there will be added turn lanes. The northeastern half of the intersection is currently being worked on, with CR 600 N closed east of Indiana 130. The southwestern half will be worked on later in the summer.

[I-39]

Any more updates on future I-65 widening projects?

[tdindy88]

Any more updates on future I-65 widening projects?

Well there are four currently either under construction or in the planning process. I'll go over them chronologically. I do apologize if some of these you've already heard of, to my knowledge the first two are currently under construction and the second two are in the planning stages.

There's the four miles in Bartholomew County from Exit 64 to 68 that will extend the six-lane segment already existing between Exit 50 and 64. That's under construction right now.

Then there's a five or six-mile segment from just north of Exit 140 (SR 32) to Exit 147 (SR 47) in Boone County which I believe is also currently under construction. This extends the existing six-lane section in Boone County that begins at Exit 129.

In the wings then is the extension of the six lane section in Tippecanoe County from north of Exit 175 (SR 25) to three miles north of Exit 178 (SR 43) which includes the widening of the bridge over the Wabash River that's been ongoing if not complete already.

Finally there's the proposed extension of the six-lane section of I-65 through the rest of Clark County and into Scott County, from north of Exit 16 (Memphis Rd) to just south of Exit 29 (SR 56.) According to INDOT's website on the project the six-lane section will actually end a couple of miles south of Exit 29 for some reason. Not sure yet when that project will start.

It is exciting to hear about all the proposes to Indiana's interstates in making them better throughout the state. It'd be great to see more from the Scottsburg-to-Seymour section and the Lebanon-to-Lafayette section in the future, along with Columbus-to-Franklin.

[I-39]

Any more updates on future I-65 widening projects?

Well there are four currently either under construction or in the planning process. I'll go over them chronologically. I do apologize if some of these you've already heard of, to my knowledge the first two are currently under construction and the second two are in the planning stages.

There's the four miles in Bartholomew County from Exit 64 to 68 that will extend the six-lane segment already existing between Exit 50 and 64. That's under construction right now.

Then there's a five or six-mile segment from just north of Exit 140 (SR 32) to Exit 147 (SR 47) in Boone County which I believe is also currently under construction. This extends the existing six-lane section in Boone County that begins at Exit 129.

In the wings then is the extension of the six lane section in Tippecanoe County from north of Exit 175 (SR 25) to three miles north of Exit 178 (SR 43) which includes the widening of the bridge over the Wabash River that's been ongoing if not complete already.

Finally there's the proposed extension of the six-lane section of I-65 through the rest of Clark County and into Scott County, from north of Exit 16 (Memphis Rd) to just south of Exit 29 (SR 56.) According to INDOT's website on the project the six-lane section will actually end a couple of miles south of Exit 29 for some reason. Not sure yet when that project will start.

It is exciting to hear about all the proposes to Indiana's interstates in making them better throughout the state. It'd be great to see more from the Scottsburg-to-Seymour section and the Lebanon-to-Lafayette section in the future, along with Columbus-to-Franklin.

I'm thinking they need to prioritize getting the remaining sections between Indianapolis and Louisville widened first. With Tennessee now moving forward with widening between Nashville and the Kentucky state line, it's important Indiana finishes the Indianapolis to Louisville segment so I-65 between Indianapolis and Nashville is fully 6+ lanes.

[SkyPesos]

This may be a selfish preference based on my location, but I prefer the Indianapolis-Chicago part widened first. But getting either segment completely widened would be an achievement.

I'm thinking they need to prioritize getting the remaining sections between Indianapolis and Louisville widened first. With Tennessee now moving forward with widening between Nashville and the Kentucky state line, it's important Indiana finishes the Indianapolis to Louisville segment so I-65 between Indianapolis and Nashville is fully 6+ lanes.

Kind of curious, is there an approximate estimate of how much NB I-65 traffic in KY dumps onto I-71 past Louisville rather than continuing on I-65 northward?

[JoePCool14]

This may be a selfish preference based on my location, but I prefer the Indianapolis-Chicago part widened first. But getting either segment completely widened would be an achievement.

I second the motion, but I will not deny, there's definitely some bias with me as well. 

I don't think the entire Indy-Chicago stretch needs to be three-laned. It certainly could do with it, but I'd be happy enough with getting two or three new sections of maybe five miles of three lanes, just so there's more opportunities for the road to open up and for you to really make progress around clumps of trucks and cars.

[silverback1065]

This may be a selfish preference based on my location, but I prefer the Indianapolis-Chicago part widened first. But getting either segment completely widened would be an achievement.

I second the motion, but I will not deny, there's definitely some bias with me as well. 

I don't think the entire Indy-Chicago stretch needs to be three-laned. It certainly could do with it, but I'd be happy enough with getting two or three new sections of maybe five miles of three lanes, just so there's more opportunities for the road to open up and for you to really make progress around clumps of trucks and cars.

i hate 65 up to chicago. i bail out on 52 and take it to 41!

[tdindy88]

i hate 65 up to chicago. i bail out on 52 and take it to 41!

In my opinion this is why Louisville to Indy should be widened to six lanes first. At least from Lafayette to Northwest Indiana there is the US 52/US 41 alternative to take. Southern Indiana has a mostly two-lane US 31 that goes through every conceivable town along its routing, making I-65 the only fast way through that area. To this day I don't exactly know why Columbus to Seymour was made six lanes when it at least had two alternative highways (US 31 and SR 11) but whatever. So put me in the camp that says Louisville to Indy should be first, along with the remainder of Lebanon to Lafayette, then we can start working on six-laning the part from northern Tippecanoe County to SR 2.

[silverback1065]

i hate 65 up to chicago. i bail out on 52 and take it to 41!

In my opinion this is why Louisville to Indy should be widened to six lanes first. At least from Lafayette to Northwest Indiana there is the US 52/US 41 alternative to take. Southern Indiana has a mostly two-lane US 31 that goes through every conceivable town along its routing, making I-65 the only fast way through that area. To this day I don't exactly know why Columbus to Seymour was made six lanes when it at least had two alternative highways (US 31 and SR 11) but whatever. So put me in the camp that says Louisville to Indy should be first, along with the remainder of Lebanon to Lafayette, then we can start working on six-laning the part from northern Tippecanoe River to SR 2.

I think it's safe to say that the area around 46 will be last. that bridge will be VERY expensive to widen. 

[NWI_Irish96]

This may be a selfish preference based on my location, but I prefer the Indianapolis-Chicago part widened first. But getting either segment completely widened would be an achievement.

I second the motion, but I will not deny, there's definitely some bias with me as well. 

I don't think the entire Indy-Chicago stretch needs to be three-laned. It certainly could do with it, but I'd be happy enough with getting two or three new sections of maybe five miles of three lanes, just so there's more opportunities for the road to open up and for you to really make progress around clumps of trucks and cars.

I drive 65 a lot and I can tell you the entire stretch really does need it. Yes, commuter traffic is heavier near the cities, but long haul truck traffic is heavy along the entire route. You can get stuck behind a truck going 66 in the left lane passing a truck going 65 in the right lane at any point in Indiana.

As to the order it should get done, it doesn't really matter. It all needs it, and the sooner the better.

[Avalanchez71]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

[JoePCool14]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

I don't think that really applies for a section of rural interstate originating from the metropolitan area of one of the nation's biggest–if not THE biggest–intermodal and intramodal infrastructure hubs. (Chicago) The traffic is there regardless of adding the extra lane.

[NWI_Irish96]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

[ssummers72]

If I-65 is not expanded with the addition of another lane. Then, how many accidents and fatalities would there need to be to justify the addition of another lane?

I had many projects when I worked for INDOT along I-65 and I-80/94 in NW Indiana. The argument of lets just not add another lane does not work. You have I-80, 90, 94, 294 flowing from Chicago into I-65 South and I-80/90/94 to the East with no relief route. With the increase in Truck Traffic traveling between the Chicago and the markets to the Southeast, not just Indianapolis and Louisville you need to look at the larger picture as to what traffic I-65 handles.

Also, if we stick with this principal as well on I-80/94, it does not work. Just compare the Illinois side versus Indiana side when it comes to holding the line on adding a lane (4 thru lanes in Indiana versus 5 thru lanes in Illinois) in regards to traffic congestion. Indiana held the line and Illinois did not.

Not all lane additions are for the sake of just adding a lane, 9 times out of 10, it is for SAFETY. Take it from someone that has had coworkers killed due to over capacity and unsafe highways.

So, if we hold the line on not adding a lane then, where will the traffic go?

Concerned for SAFETY a former INDOT Project Manager

[I-39]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Nope, holding the line slows movement/commerce and causes massive safety hazards. We can't all be driving on horse and buggy on dirt roads. I-65 needs to be 6+ lanes from I-80/94 in Gary to Nashville.

[sprjus4]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again.

I drove I-95 between Florida and North Carolina during a peak weekend during this past spring. Traffic was heavy on the 6 lane Georgia and Florida portions, but was moving at least 70 mph, and often times 75-85 mph. Very dense, but fast. Come into the 3rd lane drop and into 4 lane South Carolina, that dense traffic was moving between 45-60 mph, and often stop and go.

But sure, rural widening "doesn't work".

And this isn't even complaining about truck traffic. My closest equivalent personally experiencing with would be I-81. There are areas that are 6 lanes but it's mostly 4 lanes throughout. In the 4 lane areas, there's countless times with trucks micropassing for miles on end with no escape. Stuck at 62-65 mph for miles on end. Then when one does move over, you open up to 80 mph, then stuck behind the next platoon. On the 6 lane sections, this is happening all the time in the right two lanes, but the third lane is wide open and allows easy passing while trucks can do their games without interrupting car traffic. Amazing how it works.

[silverback1065]

"holding the line" in this case is stupid

Pixel 5

[thenetwork]

I remember when I-71 between Cleveland and Columbus  was only 2 lanes in each direction.   Most weekends you either stayed in the right lane and averaged 45 MPH or find an opening in the left lane and *maybe* reach 55-65.

Originally, when they were slowly adding the 3-lane segments, there were originally 2 sections that were not going to be 3-laned because of the "ruralness" (one south of Medina, and one in Delaware or Morrow County).  When the "choke points" were completed, the traffic got worse. 

Didn't take long for ODOT to realize they need a full 3 lanes minimum between Cleveland and Columbus, which finally got done about 5-6 years ago.

[SkyPesos]

I remember when I-71 between Cleveland and Columbus  was only 2 lanes in each direction.   Most weekends you either stayed in the right lane and averaged 45 MPH or find an opening in the left lane and *maybe* reach 55-65.

Originally, when they were slowly adding the 3-lane segments, there were originally 2 sections that were not going to be 3-laned because of the "ruralness" (one south of Medina, and one in Delaware or Morrow County).  When the "choke points" were completed, the traffic got worse. 

Didn't take long for ODOT to realize they need a full 3 lanes minimum between Cleveland and Columbus, which finally got done about 5-6 years ago.

Wow, didn't know it was that bad before the 6-laning. Makes I-71 between Cincinnati and Columbus (a drive I do every 3 months or so) look very sparse, as you can still average 65-75 mph, and sometimes even go up to 80 on the left lane, on weekends there. It looks like it can wait for about a decade before the need to 6 lane it at current traffic levels. Though it seems like ODOT is preparing for its eventual widening, with enough space for a 3rd lane in each direction on the reconstructed Jeremiah Morrow Bridge.