Indiana Notes

[ran4sh]

No offense to anyone who drives truck for a living, but that's a profession that's not exactly known its geniuses.  It never surprises me when truckers make boneheaded moves like running into low overpasses or trying to cross bridges that can't handle their weight.  Don't get me wrong, regular car drivers are idiots as well; bigger idiots in most cases.  But they're not supposed professionals.  Trucking gets their drivers from the same pool of shlubs we all came from, so picture the 2 or 3 biggest dingbats at your work.  That same bell curve applies to truckers.  Except at the low end of their bell curve, tons of vehicle crash into things instead of your spreadsheet getting messed up.

In some cases the information on weight limits is inaccurate or unavailable even when the driver is using a proper GPS. I know someone who drives a truck with a company-provided GPS, which is set to the correct truck weight of 80000 lb, yet it still routes the truck onto some bridges that I know have lower weight limits.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

INDOT has released the Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) Study Report for the proposed I-80/94 Flex Road Project. You can read it here, but here are some of the main talking points.

There are four "packages"  being considered for this project:

Package 1: Dynamic Shoulder Lanes, Event Management, improved VMS signage, and interchange improvements
Package 2: Package 1 plus ramp metering
Package 3: Package 1 plus variable speed limit signage (per lane), dynamic lane controls, and queue warnings (think of the Smart Lane System on the Jane Addams Tollway for the last two - same idea)
Package 4: All of the Above

This appears to be a joint collaboration with IDOT, since the study limits are set between I-65 and the I-294/IL-394 interchanges.

One major highlight of the report includes a proposal to reconfigure the Broadway interchange. The proposal would call for the ramp from northbound Broadway to eastbound I-80/94 to be removed; instead, northbound traffic would turn left onto the existing loop ramp to merge onto I-80/94 eastbound.

Theoretically, this would be the result: by the time eastbound traffic passes Grant Street, the far right lane would become "exit only"  for I-65, with the second lane from the right becoming an option lane (keep straight or exit right). With the reconfigured Broadway ramp, a third lane for I-65 would be created (two exit only lanes, plus one option) using the existing shoulder. A new inner lane would be created near the Broadway interchange to keep four lanes of I-80/94 through traffic past I-65 to where the road currently reduces to three lanes.

The study says the current configuration from Grant Street to I-65 creates a bottleneck because traffic looking to exit to I-65 southbound has to wait for for the Broadway merge before exit lanes are made available, causing mainline slowdowns. The proposed reconfiguration would allow exiting traffic to maintain speed without a need for changing lanes, while allowing Broadway traffic looking to stay on I-80/94 eastbound time to make it (at least) to the option lane.

There are more aspects to this project, and work is still a ways off, but at least we have an idea of what it will entail.

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm just glad they've ruled out taking more ROW and forcing me to move.

[Joe The Dragon]

INDOT has released the Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) Study Report for the proposed I-80/94 Flex Road Project. You can read it here, but here are some of the main talking points.

There are four "packages"  being considered for this project:

Package 1: Dynamic Shoulder Lanes, Event Management, improved VMS signage, and interchange improvements
Package 2: Package 1 plus ramp metering
Package 3: Package 1 plus variable speed limit signage (per lane), dynamic lane controls, and queue warnings (think of the Smart Lane System on the Jane Addams Tollway for the last two - same idea)
Package 4: All of the Above

This appears to be a joint collaboration with IDOT, since the study limits are set between I-65 and the I-294/IL-394 interchanges.

and not the tollway on the tollway parts?
Dynamic Shoulder Lanes should use the same system as will be installed on I-294 and in place on I-90

halsted st to I-80 can maybe use one aux lane (add one lane) to make 5 main on I-294 under halsted st

[nwi_navigator_1181]

and not the tollway on the tollway parts?
Dynamic Shoulder Lanes should use the same system as will be installed on I-294 and in place on I-90

halsted st to I-80 can maybe use one aux lane (add one lane) to make 5 main on I-294 under halsted st

The Tollway is under a completely different jurisdiction (ISTHA).

The only way five lanes would ever work between Halsted and I-80/94 would be to remove the Lincoln Oasis and to work a deal with CN Railways to replace their overpass. I don't see either of those scenarios happening anytime soon.

[Joe The Dragon]

and not the tollway on the tollway parts?
Dynamic Shoulder Lanes should use the same system as will be installed on I-294 and in place on I-90

halsted st to I-80 can maybe use one aux lane (add one lane) to make 5 main on I-294 under halsted st

The Tollway is under a completely different jurisdiction (ISTHA).

The only way five lanes would ever work between Halsted and I-80/94 would be to remove the Lincoln Oasis and to work a deal with CN Railways to replace their overpass. I don't see either of those scenarios happening anytime soon.

It is 5 lanes now. Form I-80 to Halsted Maybe add one more as flex or drop the shoulders for that one part.

Just need to CN Railways to replace their overpass to get an lane from Halsted to the Lincoln Oasis.

and get rid of the Lincoln Oasis overpass to go 5 lanes each way.

[JoePCool14]

I hesitate to see any of those improvements making a sufficient impact on the Borman. The best thing in my eyes would be the creation of truck-free express lanes, even reversible lanes if possible. The shear volume of trucks really ruins that road. That's not going to happen though given the lack of ROW. Ramp meters might help cut down on delays at the start and end, but I don't usually see much traffic merging on aside from the other highways. And using the shoulder as a flex lane doesn't sit well with me.

Obviously, we know here what the true best solution is, but we'll all probably be dead in the grave before that happens.

[hobsini2]

I'm with Joe on this. Even a reversible express with 2 lanes from Bishop Ford to the ITR should help with traffic. Access to the express lanes should be at Bishop Ford, IN 912 Cline Ave, I-65 and the ITR.

[NWI_Irish96]

Without expanding the ROW, reversible lanes would take away from the permanent travel lanes, and there's enough traffic going both directions during rush hour that makes that a bad idea.

I don't see there being any more they can do than what they're proposing. The only thing that's going to help is an additional route, whether it be the Illiana or something else.

[hobsini2]

Without expanding the ROW, reversible lanes would take away from the permanent travel lanes, and there's enough traffic going both directions during rush hour that makes that a bad idea.

I don't see there being any more they can do than what they're proposing. The only thing that's going to help is an additional route, whether it be the Illiana or something else.

Optimally, I would love the Illiana to exist. Should have been built 20 years ago at the very least between 57 and 65.

[NWI_Irish96]

Without expanding the ROW, reversible lanes would take away from the permanent travel lanes, and there's enough traffic going both directions during rush hour that makes that a bad idea.

I don't see there being any more they can do than what they're proposing. The only thing that's going to help is an additional route, whether it be the Illiana or something else.

Optimally, I would love the Illiana to exist. Should have been built 20 years ago at the very least between 57 and 65.

Or at least between 65 and 394.

[triplemultiplex]

The Illiana should have been conceived from the start as an x80 'bypass'.  All tollway and 3x3 the whole way.  And start construction c. 1990.

But alas...

Now if one wants to really add capacity to the Borman, you're talking about elevating some lanes above the entire thing, probably. The kind of thing one sees in Texas.

[ITB]

Earlier today all lanes of I-65 southbound were closed at SR 18 in Tippecanoe County due to a huge pothole. The hole was the size of car hood. It's being called a pothole in new reports, but it may have been a sinkhole. Emergency repairs were, of course, quickly undertaken, and were expected to take eight to 10 hours to complete. Wow. What a mess.

Edit: The INDOT alert states the pothole was on a bridge deck. The specific location involved was not noted, but it could be the bridge over Rayman Ditch, just south of SR 18. So it wasn't a sinkhole, and was more likely a structural failure.


INDOT Trafficwise Camera Image

[SEWIGuy]

The Illiana should have been conceived from the start as an x80 'bypass'.  All tollway and 3x3 the whole way.  And start construction c. 1990.

But alas...

Now if one wants to really add capacity to the Borman, you're talking about elevating some lanes above the entire thing, probably. The kind of thing one sees in Texas.

It seems to me the biggest problem with the Borman is that you have a bunch of local traffic "mixing" with a bunch of through traffic that just needs to get around the bottom of the lake to head elsewhere. If that is indeed the case, the only way I could see Illiana having a significant enough impact is if it becomes a truly I-80 bypass - maybe even going to I-94 in Michigan. But I-57 to I-65 I don't think would have been much help.

I just was on the Borman twice this past week going from the Chicago area south. Would I have taken I-57 to Illiana to I-65 instead of the Tri-State to the Borman to I-65 even if it meant sitting in traffic?  I doubt it.

[silverback1065]

they could pull a texas and place extra lanes above mainline on a bridge 

[skluth]

they could pull a texas and place extra lanes above mainline on a bridge 

Silly as that sounds, an elevated four-lane through bridge from where I-80 joins the Tri-State to the I-65 interchange would do wonders for traffic. Twenty miles of elevated bridge would be expensive, but it takes no land and doesn't require any access between the endpoints but emergency access points.

[hobsini2]

they could pull a texas and place extra lanes above mainline on a bridge 

Silly as that sounds, an elevated four-lane through bridge from where I-80 joins the Tri-State to the I-65 interchange would do wonders for traffic. Twenty miles of elevated bridge would be expensive, but it takes no land and doesn't require any access between the endpoints but emergency access points.

The only thing is that you would have to raise those bridges really high due to the fly over ramps at Calumet Ave, Indianapolis Blvd and Cline Ave.

[I-55]

The Illiana should have been conceived from the start as an x80 'bypass'.  All tollway and 3x3 the whole way.  And start construction c. 1990.

But alas...

Now if one wants to really add capacity to the Borman, you're talking about elevating some lanes above the entire thing, probably. The kind of thing one sees in Texas.

It seems to me the biggest problem with the Borman is that you have a bunch of local traffic "mixing" with a bunch of through traffic that just needs to get around the bottom of the lake to head elsewhere. If that is indeed the case, the only way I could see Illiana having a significant enough impact is if it becomes a truly I-80 bypass - maybe even going to I-94 in Michigan. But I-57 to I-65 I don't think would have been much help.

I just was on the Borman twice this past week going from the Chicago area south. Would I have taken I-57 to Illiana to I-65 instead of the Tri-State to the Borman to I-65 even if it meant sitting in traffic?  I doubt it.

Extending I-355 down to meet that wouldn't be a shabby idea itself. Then you're providing a bypass for all thru traffic not using I-94, and you'd probably see the Borman ease up a little bit, maybe enough to allow ROW to be converted to reversible express lanes for peak hours.

[ITB]

This afternoon, in Hamilton County, a truck trailer caught fire on northbound I-69 about a mile past the I-69/SR 37 interchange. The incident resulted in the complete closure of both the northbound and southbound lanes for a while. The southbound lanes were reopened after about 20 minutes, but the northbound remained closed much longer, producing a monumental backup. Apparently, the fire was very hot as sections of the trailer melted. A dumpster and an mid-sized excavator with a bucket grapple were trucked in to deal with the mess. Most of the shipment, it seems, was able to be recovered. It appears, as well, the trucker was able to detach the cab before the fire expanded to it.


INDOT Trafficwise Camera
Just after the fire was extinguished.


INDOT Trafficwise Camera
Cleaning up the mess. The truck's remaining cargo is in the foreground.


INDOT Trafficwise Camera
The backup on the northbound lanes.


INDOT Trafficwise Camera
Another perspective of the backup.
 

[triplemultiplex]

Interesting. Based on the first image, it seems like the cargo itself is what caught fire, not anything to do with the trailer (like a reefer motor blowing up or something.)

Good thing there are 3 lanes in each direction here otherwise they'd have been shut down for longer, I imagine.  Enough room for traffic to squeeze past with the extra room.

[ran4sh]

Yes, that's a thing in truck transportation. I know some truck drivers and they say they're trained that, in case of the trailer or cargo being on fire, pull over and if possible, quickly disconnect the trailer from the tractor, to save the tractor. Trailers are a lot less expensive to replace than if the whole truck caught on fire

[PurdueBill]

Uh-oh....INDOT sign refacing aka "overlay sign panel work".  Odds that the sign legend will have any top margin?

https://www.facebook.com/INDOTEast/posts/pfbid0gXguQhBoLRPgsgMLWYyg5yamewaJMMCAfZAyGrLyv8VziHcNG18E8o2jfgkrdU9l
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/INDOT/bulletins/327a630?fbclid=IwAR3OJikWicfgJIY2DhUNH2-nNhQL7Qe3P8LaItdvyrGYSQGJbcxQ8vu3zzY

[silverback1065]

i find that when signs are refaced, they always have these weird massive gaps.  not sure why, maybe they aren't following the plans?

[PurdueBill]

i find that when signs are refaced, they always have these weird massive gaps.  not sure why, maybe they aren't following the plans?

The worst I've seen is on I-469.  It was forgivable when they removed US 24 from the sign and it left extra space.  It is not forgivable that the refacing job moved the I-69 shield even further up on the sign away from other legend.  (This is a clear example of where new sign panels are really called for.)
https://goo.gl/maps/8L7MUb4AbtAEbQYG8

[silverback1065]

i find that when signs are refaced, they always have these weird massive gaps.  not sure why, maybe they aren't following the plans?

The worst I've seen is on I-469.  It was forgivable when they removed US 24 from the sign and it left extra space.  It is not forgivable that the refacing job moved the I-69 shield even further up on the sign away from other legend.  (This is a clear example of where new sign panels are really called for.)
https://goo.gl/maps/8L7MUb4AbtAEbQYG8

this one would make you angrier  https://www.google.com/maps/@40.992372,-85.2681015,3a,15y,113.62h,99.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0IInfY-N0FLEgM2NBGiHIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i did notice this sign is wrong: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9568315,-85.2942839,3a,75y,31.33h,85.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdN3OjEcD4bGsIJyl27ISYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 US 24 doesn't travel down here anymore.