Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

Started by mukade, June 25, 2011, 08:55:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

thefro

#900
US 31 is pretty barren outside of those 3 sections that they're upgrading to freeway standards.  Those will be be the biggest problem spots in upgrading the whole thing by far (unless Carmel/Westfield sprawls north past the freeway segment).  I'm sure it'd still cost quite a bit to upgrade the rest, but per-mile it ought to be a lot cheaper than SR 37 to I-69 or upgrading US 41 from Evansville to Terre Haute.  I think people want it upgraded just so you can go 70 mph on the road and cut down on travel time to South Bend (which also happens to be a very boring drive).

Agree that the ICC is a boondoggle... I've mentioned that I could see a freeway from I-69 on the N side to I-70 on the E side as being useful, but that'd probably make the sprawl even worse on that side of the city.  I have no idea what the point even is if you're not going to toll it (not that you'd make money of the tolls anyway).

On I-65 & I-70, I'd start on widening the roads to 3 lanes around the metro areas where they're not already.  North of Louisville to Memphis, IN (this will be needed with I-265 being connected to the KY side with the new bridge), from Franklin up to Greenwood, and the Lafayette area on I-65, then Terre Haute on I-70 along with maybe the east side past I-465 in Indy.  The rest is generally fine except when semis pass each other (and there is a lot of truck traffic on I-65).

I know politically they'll want to spread the money around to get support, but hopefully INDOT continues to prioritize upgrading SR 37 to I-69.


Revive 755

Quote from: trafficsignal on April 05, 2013, 10:03:30 AM
Here is the relevant slide from the budget summary that was released



No mention of the Illiana?  I though the Commerce Connector was supposed to be the same type of private toll road facility as the Illiana.

Wonder if the six laning of I-70 listing means the truck only lanes for I-70 have died?

mukade

Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2013, 09:54:41 AM
Sorry, but I still don't see the need for a full freeway-ization of US 31. Bypass places like Kokomo, yes, but the rest of the route is a perfectly good surface four-lane. This is in the same category of foolishness as the oft-mentioned desire to extend I-26 up US 23 into Virginia and Kentucky.

It is not "perfectly good". While you as someone who lives in another state may not see the need for an upgrade, people from the area certainly do. These would be the primary reasons:

  • From Peru south, the traffic counts are quite high: Look at the INDOT AADT maps. Compare these numbers with SR 37 south of Indy, I-64, I-74, and even the west end of I-70 (or I-69 in Ky).
  • According to the US 31 Coalition, the current road has fatality and other crash rates as high as 2.5 times the statewide average. They say these crashes are due to congestion and the number of driveways on US 31. That is true, but for decades, the main problem I have seen are frequent accidents at the traffic lights (usually involving semis) where an inattentive driver runs the light. Remember, seven traffic lights will remain after the three current projects are completed.
  • From a local perspective, a freeway increases chances for economic development

From the perspective of a commuter, it is pretty clear the current highway is dangerous as the highway is certainly congested both ways from Kokomo to Indy during the rush hours. Any accident causes long backups. I would be interested if people who live near South Bend or in western Michigan travelling south think that making US 31 a freeway through northern Indiana (esp. south of Peru) would be foolishness.

Quote from: thefro on April 07, 2013, 04:49:09 PM
US 31 is pretty barren outside of those 3 sections that they're upgrading to freeway standards....   I think people want it upgraded just so you can go 70 mph on the road and cut down on travel time to South Bend (which also happens to be a very boring drive).

The Peru, Grisson ARB, Tipton (where the new Chrysler plant is being built), and from 236th Street south are not barren. I would say nothing south of US 24 is close to being desolate. North of US 24 is where lower traffic counts, lack of stoplights, and low population density make an upgrade a somewhat lower priority.

The flat, boring drive is why the serious accidents happen so frequently at the traffic lights.

US 41

There are road cnstruction signs in Bloomington ow on SR 37 for the I69 interchange. They also put TO I69 signs at the SR 37 / SR 45 interchange refering to the current end of 69 in Crane.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: thefro on April 07, 2013, 04:49:09 PM
US 31 is pretty barren outside of those 3 sections that they're upgrading to freeway standards.  Those will be be the biggest problem spots in upgrading the whole thing by far (unless Carmel/Westfield sprawls north past the freeway segment).  I'm sure it'd still cost quite a bit to upgrade the rest, but per-mile it ought to be a lot cheaper than SR 37 to I-69 or upgrading US 41 from Evansville to Terre Haute.  I think people want it upgraded just so you can go 70 mph on the road and cut down on travel time to South Bend (which also happens to be a very boring drive).

Agree that the ICC is a boondoggle... I've mentioned that I could see a freeway from I-69 on the N side to I-70 on the E side as being useful, but that'd probably make the sprawl even worse on that side of the city.  I have no idea what the point even is if you're not going to toll it (not that you'd make money of the tolls anyway).

On I-65 & I-70, I'd start on widening the roads to 3 lanes around the metro areas where they're not already.  North of Louisville to Memphis, IN (this will be needed with I-265 being connected to the KY side with the new bridge), from Franklin up to Greenwood, and the Lafayette area on I-65, then Terre Haute on I-70 along with maybe the east side past I-465 in Indy.  The rest is generally fine except when semis pass each other (and there is a lot of truck traffic on I-65).

I know politically they'll want to spread the money around to get support, but hopefully INDOT continues to prioritize upgrading SR 37 to I-69.

I drive between Louisville and South Bend 6-8 times a year, and I can tell you exactly what will improve safety and commute times the most.

I-65: Upgrading just Sellersburg-Memphis and Greenwood-Franklin will help very little.  The slowdowns on I-65 are due much more to trucks passing each other than from suburban commuter traffic, and those trucks are usually running the entire length and not just the suburban stretches.  Other than the Kokomo section of US 31, nothing would improve the trip time more than getting the 3rd lane all the way from Sellersburg-Greenwood.  I don't travel I-70, but I can only assume the same holds true there.

US 31:  The Tipton and southern Miami county sections are not nearly as "barren" as they used to be.  They could definitely use upgrading.  The section between Plymouth and Peru is stoplight-free and probably isn't as much of a priority, but again I would rate all of this a lower priority than the 3rd lane on I-65 (& I-70).
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

ShawnP

The Kentuckian TIP has a six lane project from Sellersburg to Memphis sked in 2015 project. I believe this will happen as the TIP PDF is a few years old but they have pretty much followed it without many projects dropping off.

tdindy88

Quote from: US 41 on April 08, 2013, 08:16:29 AM
There are road cnstruction signs in Bloomington ow on SR 37 for the I69 interchange. They also put TO I69 signs at the SR 37 / SR 45 interchange refering to the current end of 69 in Crane.

Really, that's news to me. I have heard that construction is starting in Bloomington and I hope to see it later this spring, but I didn't know if they were going to have an I-69 shields up there now. Are there I-69 shields along SR 45 too?

silverback1065

So current phase is to finish it until sr 37 and past that there is no funding right?

truejd

I drove from Indy to Evansville via 37, 45, and I 69 over Easter weekend. There are "TO 69" signs from the 37/45 interchange along every turn until you reach i69 in Crane

thefro

#909
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 08, 2013, 10:44:02 PM
So current phase is to finish it until sr 37 and past that there is no funding right?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg205705#msg205705

INDOT wants to start construction on upgrading SR 37 within Bloomington to I-69 in 2014 and apparently has money earmarked for that from their normal budget/federal funding.  $77.7 million is what they're planning on spending on that between 2013-2015.

There is a meeting this Friday actually where the Bloomington/Monroe County MPO will vote on whether to approve it (that's the next step in the process as they can't use federal money if the MPO rejects it).  We should learn more in that meeting.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/apr/09/crews-finish-clearing-path-new-i-69-stretch/
QuoteBLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Workers and machines have finished clearing trees from the path of one of the final stretches of the Interstate 69 extension in Southern Indiana.

Crews worked long hours and weekends to clear the 27-mile swath from U.S. 231 in Greene County and Indiana 37 near Bloomington.

The job was completed by the March 31 deadline. The Herald-Times reports (http://bit.ly/10JwuNr ) tree cutting isn't allowed between April 1 and Nov. 15 under a federal-state deal designed to protect the endangered Indiana bat during roosting season.

The state also is restoring or preserving 4,100 acres of wetlands, streams and forests.

The felled trees still must be chipped and removed to make way for construction.

If nothing interferes with construction, I-69 from Evansville to Bloomington should be completed by the end of 2014.

silverback1065


mukade


ShawnP

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 09, 2013, 05:37:09 PM
http://www.urbanindy.com/2013/04/09/indiana-commerce-connector-back-in-play/

I wonder what number the ICC would carry if it were built
My choice would be 666 because it is the devil that will steal badly needed funds from other state projects.

ShawnP

Quote from: mukade on April 09, 2013, 06:16:04 PM
Tree clearing completed for I-69 through Greene, Monroe counties (Indiana Economic digest)
States love their data so I know they have a estimate of the board feet cut up would love to have that number. New to Indiana in the last 3 years so a bit unfamiliar with state road ops. So who gets the money from the cut up timber?

tdindy88

I was under the impression that the commerce connector would be I-69, leaving the stretch from Anderson southward to be a spur route, but that was only an impression. I viewed the commerce connector as a way of getting out of building Section 6 of I-69.

Interesting for me, given the negative reaction to the highway on THIS board and the negative reaction from the anti-highway/pro-transit crowd elsewhere, this appears to be a project that multiple groups on usually different sides of the whole "highway debate" can come together on. It says something when the people (and granted this may not be speaking for everyone out there) here say that the ICC is a bad idea, and we generally like roads.

vtk

Also, there's already a road called ICC.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

mukade

Quote from: tdindy88 on April 09, 2013, 07:21:03 PM
I was under the impression that the commerce connector would be I-69, leaving the stretch from Anderson southward to be a spur route, but that was only an impression. I viewed the commerce connector as a way of getting out of building Section 6 of I-69.

I have not seen anything official that it could be I-69, but there was speculation that it could be because it solved some of the issues around rebuilding SR 37 as it approaches I-465.

Quote from: tdindy88 on April 09, 2013, 07:21:03 PM
Interesting for me, given the negative reaction to the highway on THIS board and the negative reaction from the anti-highway/pro-transit crowd elsewhere, this appears to be a project that multiple groups on usually different sides of the whole "highway debate" can come together on. It says something when the people (and granted this may not be speaking for everyone out there) here say that the ICC is a bad idea, and we generally like roads.

I am against the ICC purely on the basis that other road projects should have a higher priority including US 31. At some point, it may make sense, but certainly not now.

silverback1065

Does anyone think this ICC would be supported by more people in the area if it were simply a divided highway with at grade intersections?

Alps

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 09, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Does anyone think this ICC would be supported by more people in the area if it were simply a divided highway with at grade intersections?
No. It just doesn't make sense to build anything there. Kinda like most of the "freeways" in West Virginia (Corridor H, etc.)

trafficsignal

Quote from: silverback1065 on April 09, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Does anyone think this ICC would be supported by more people in the area if it were simply a divided highway with at grade intersections?

I think its too far out to be of any real use regionally.  Now, if they would use the proposed money to support the local/regional 4-lane boulevard "ring" plan (upgrade Mt. Comfort + whatever Johnson Co. is thinking about - Worthsville Rd.? - to match Ronald Reagan & 146th St.), I could see that having some traction since its in more of a developed / developing area.

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: tdindy88 on April 09, 2013, 07:21:03 PM
I was under the impression that the commerce connector would be I-69, leaving the stretch from Anderson southward to be a spur route, but that was only an impression. I viewed the commerce connector as a way of getting out of building Section 6 of I-69.

Interesting for me, given the negative reaction to the highway on THIS board and the negative reaction from the anti-highway/pro-transit crowd elsewhere, this appears to be a project that multiple groups on usually different sides of the whole "highway debate" can come together on. It says something when the people (and granted this may not be speaking for everyone out there) here say that the ICC is a bad idea, and we generally like roads.

Well, some of the local opposition to ICC is the typical knee-jerk reaction from people who are against the government spending any money on anything.  Then on top of that I think a lot of it is that most people don't see it as a road they would use.

Where I don't see the proponents doing a good job of selling the ICC is that they aren't emphasizing how much thru traffic (especially truck traffic) it will clear off the current choke points in Marion/Hamilton counties which will make a lot of people's commutes better even if they aren't using the road.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

vtk

It's my understanding that the Indiana Commerce Connector is meant to serve the truck traffic it will create.  I'm imagining development like what's along Alum Creek Dr between I-270 and Rickenbacker Int'l Airport in Columbus, but on a much larger scale.

I'm not really opposed to the road or the development.  But the road does not serve the public aside from the traffic needs of the development it will enable; therefore I consider the road to be part of the development.  Thus, construction of the Indiana Commerce Connector should be funded entirely by the private interests that intend to develop the land there.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

vdeane

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

tdindy88

Quote from: cabiness42 on April 10, 2013, 07:53:22 AM
Where I don't see the proponents doing a good job of selling the ICC is that they aren't emphasizing how much thru traffic (especially truck traffic) it will clear off the current choke points in Marion/Hamilton counties which will make a lot of people's commutes better even if they aren't using the road.

Operation Indy Commute is supposed to be taking care of the choke points, or at least two of them. Widening I-65 and I-70 to six lanes across the state help too in relieving congestion caused by trucks and I-465 is already at least six lanes around the city, forming a suitable bypass. That said, if I-465 were widened to eight lanes at least for the remainder of its loop (mainly the north and south sides) and interchanges improved to improve traffic flow (such as the I-65 south side and I-69 north side interchanges) then the ability to get around the city will improve as well. And with any improved work on I-465 you won't have to worry about cutting through anyone's property. And even if it's a time factor, traveling through the city or at least on I-465 has to be a quicker option a good 20 or so hours each day.

I'm with mukade on this one, maybe in the future this highway may be a good idea, but not now. Improvments to our current interstate system and additions of critical missing links (I-69 and US 31) will be much better. One last thing to note and I think it's been mentioned before, even on this thread, the senator proposing this is from Noblesville, which apparently doesn't need a beltway. All of these county seats apparently must have two freeways connecting them, but Noblesville is just fine with a four-lane SR 37 (I don't count I-69 in the southeastern part of the city?)

silverback1065

#924
I don't like the ICC idea either.  I have no idea why INDOT refuses to fix the I-69 interchange, I know they have plans to do it, but this should have been done 5 years a go or more.  It is (in my opinion) the most frustrating and in a lot of ways dangerous ( the 2 loop ramps causing weaving) interchange I've driven in Indy, especially during rush hour.  They should have rebuilt that entire interchange before they did the improvements they are doing at SR 37.  The bypass does make a lot of sense to me on the right side of the city, it would at least in theory lower congestion on 69 in the Fishers area. 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.