IN SR 25 Upgrade Report

[silverback1065]

this is immediately the solution i thought of to fix this problem (i-485 in Charlotte): https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3684929,-80.7854475,17z     but honestly why is there a triangle of roads there?  SR 29 should be the only road leaving south from there, that unsigned stub should have been removed completely or at least cul-de-saced.

That is a good question probably only answered with "because the road was already there" or something--before the expressway, the leg of 29 that currently brances off to the northwest to meet 24/35 didn't exist.  Today, it could probably be removed without causing too much trouble--except adding to volume at the eastern intersections of the split diamond for those taking 29 and going through to 24/35 on the west side.  INDOT must have traffic counts for all these, but who knows.  Probably cheaper to leave the road there than take it out, just like Monticello Road's exit westbound and the whole dual carriageway staying in place between there and still-current 24/35.  No real reason for it to be there anymore, but it would cost something to take it out.

I think keeping the existing roadways is fine because there are houses along the roads, but obviously, the signage and lighting were inadequate. You could maybe give INDOT a pass on signage as a split diamond like this is uncommon in the state, but I will say that the lack of lighting at all the new interchanges on SR 25, US 31, and I-69 is something they should have done something about. In Hamilton County (Carmel, especially), there is expensive, ornamental lighting everywhere along the new US 31 freeway. Was that paid for by INDOT or the cities in Hamilton County?

I'm going to say Carmel paid for it because federally funded highways tend to go for boiler plate lighting in an effort to use money in the most effective way.

[mukade]

I am not sure if there is boilerplate when it comes to lighting. The I-69/SR 68 is lit like a Christmas tree, but things are then dark on I-69 until Bloomington. The contracts for US 31/SR 28 seem to have lighting, but there is no lighting on US 31 in Kokomo. I don't remember seeing much lighting on US 31 near South Bend. Anyway, it isn't real consistent.

I think there needs to be a minimum level of lighting at interchanges.

[PurdueBill]

this is immediately the solution i thought of to fix this problem (i-485 in Charlotte): https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3684929,-80.7854475,17z     but honestly why is there a triangle of roads there?  SR 29 should be the only road leaving south from there, that unsigned stub should have been removed completely or at least cul-de-saced.

That is a good question probably only answered with "because the road was already there" or something--before the expressway, the leg of 29 that currently brances off to the northwest to meet 24/35 didn't exist.  Today, it could probably be removed without causing too much trouble--except adding to volume at the eastern intersections of the split diamond for those taking 29 and going through to 24/35 on the west side.  INDOT must have traffic counts for all these, but who knows.  Probably cheaper to leave the road there than take it out, just like Monticello Road's exit westbound and the whole dual carriageway staying in place between there and still-current 24/35.  No real reason for it to be there anymore, but it would cost something to take it out.

I think keeping the existing roadways is fine because there are houses along the roads, but obviously, the signage and lighting were inadequate. You could maybe give INDOT a pass on signage as a split diamond like this is uncommon in the state, but I will say that the lack of lighting at all the new interchanges on SR 25, US 31, and I-69 is something they should have done something about. In Hamilton County (Carmel, especially), there is expensive, ornamental lighting everywhere along the new US 31 freeway. Was that paid for by INDOT or the cities in Hamilton County?

The northernmost section of SR 29 in question has no houses or anything on it though--it was carved out of farmland when the Logansport bypass was built for US 35 to connect to SR 29/Burlington Ave.  They could eliminate that section of road without too much problem, getting rid of the triangle, but that would not get rid of the split diamond.  Burlington Ave, on the other hand, dates to before any of the bypasses and has houses and access that must be maintained.

[mukade]

The northernmost section of SR 29 in question has no houses or anything on it though--it was carved out of farmland when the Logansport bypass was built for US 35 to connect to SR 29/Burlington Ave.  They could eliminate that section of road without too much problem, getting rid of the triangle, but that would not get rid of the split diamond.  Burlington Ave, on the other hand, dates to before any of the bypasses and has houses and access that must be maintained.

Yes, there are no driveways onto SR 29, but the SR 29 route is clearly the major one of the two with much of it being four lanes. Burlington Ave. is two lanes and not a modern, safe highway by any means. Moreover, assuming Logansport wants development along their bypass (unlike Kokomo, for example), i would say that the SW quadrant along SR 29 is one of the two likely areas for it to happen. So i can't imagine that section of road being eliminated.

[PurdueBill]

The northernmost section of SR 29 in question has no houses or anything on it though--it was carved out of farmland when the Logansport bypass was built for US 35 to connect to SR 29/Burlington Ave.  They could eliminate that section of road without too much problem, getting rid of the triangle, but that would not get rid of the split diamond.  Burlington Ave, on the other hand, dates to before any of the bypasses and has houses and access that must be maintained.

Yes, there are no driveways onto SR 29, but the SR 29 route is clearly the major one of the two with much of it being four lanes. Burlington Ave. is two lanes and not a modern, safe highway by any means. Moreover, assuming Logansport wants development along their bypass (unlike Kokomo, for example), i would say that the SW quadrant along SR 29 is one of the two likely areas for it to happen. So i can't imagine that section of road being eliminated.

Isn't SR 29 only the two-lane route up to where it meets 24/35 (and now 25)?  The dual carriageway north/west of there is 24/35 through the old 25 "interchange" and then 24 leaves.  The old road before the 24/35 bypass (originally just 35) was built was current Burlington Ave, with that leg (where following 29 to its northern end requires a left turn) built with the 35 bypass as two lanes, only widening to four right where it met 35.

Anyway, getting rid of it wouldn't do much good right now, but conceivably if people can't handle the split diamond, that northernmost part of 29 could become part of 24/35 if they made it exit, turn left at Burlington, then right and straight through.  Silly? Yes, but so is the problem with the split diamond.