Indiana Notes

[tdindy88]

I believe there are plans for a western connector road that runs from SR 44 west of Shelbyville north to I-74 near Fairland. A small section of this roadway has already been built in the form of Tom Hession Drive, going from CR 400 N to CR 300 N. Ultimately the plan is to run this roadway south SR 44. To my knowledge thought it is not a state project.

[hockeyjohn]

So today I decided to go to Indianapolis the long way and during my drive I noticed something weird. Signage indicated that IN-38 ended at US-421 north of Frankfort. I thought okay I guess they got rid of the redundant section of IN-38 between south Frankfort and Kirklin. But when I was driving on US-421 through Kirklin, signage indicated that IN-38 crossed US-421 at Kirklin. So I'm assuming they only got rid of the concurrency with SR-39.

Why create a gap in a route when you own all of the road needed to make the route continuous?

It's understandable that INDOT prefers not to have three highways marked concurrently, but then it should have eliminated SR 39.   That would not only get rid of the 421-38-39 concurrency around Frankfort, but also the 421-18-39 concurrency near Delphi.

Another thought would be to re-route US-421 over SR 43 from Reynolds to I-65; along I-65 down to SR 28; then east along SR 28 into Frankfort.

[hockeyjohn]

Funny. Some five to ten years ago, INDOT invested in new signage to make SR 19 a continuous route from Noblesville to Elkhart. Routed 19 over SR 22 & US 35 to SR 13 and then SR 18 to make the connection happen. Then this stuff happens on other routes. Hard to figure.

Agreed.   If INDOT really feels SR 19 should be continuous from Noblesville to Elkhart, it would be more direct to put 19 onto US-31 from Kokomo to Peru and re-number SR 19 between Peru and SR 18 either back to SR 21 (it's previous designation) or SR 17 to better fit into the grid.

[hockeyjohn]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

[NWI_Irish96]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

INDOT is never going to renumber SR 17 just to use the number elsewhere.  If CR 17 does ever become a state highway, it would either be 217 to keep the continuity with the Michigan section or it could be an extension of 119, with the existing part of 119 east of CR 17 turned over to the county/city.

[paulthemapguy]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

I find it pretty inexcusable that CR 17 near Elkhart isn't still a state highway.  INDOT trying to absolve itself from as much responsibility as possible, as usual.

[NWI_Irish96]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

I find it pretty inexcusable that CR 17 near Elkhart isn't still a state highway.  INDOT trying to absolve itself from as much responsibility as possible, as usual.

INDOT didn't build the road.  Elkhart County built the road.  I'm not sure why INDOT should automatically be responsible for the road just because it's nice now.  Reagan Parkway in Hendricks County would fall into the same boat.

It would be nice for INDOT to take the road so it can get a number, but they are under no obligation to do so.

[silverback1065]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

I find it pretty inexcusable that CR 17 near Elkhart isn't still a state highway.  INDOT trying to absolve itself from as much responsibility as possible, as usual.

INDOT didn't build the road.  Elkhart County built the road.  I'm not sure why INDOT should automatically be responsible for the road just because it's nice now.  Reagan Parkway in Hendricks County would fall into the same boat.

It would be nice for INDOT to take the road so it can get a number, but they are under no obligation to do so.

I think INDOT was offered RR Pkwy by hendricks county and they declined. 

[sparker]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

I find it pretty inexcusable that CR 17 near Elkhart isn't still a state highway.  INDOT trying to absolve itself from as much responsibility as possible, as usual.

INDOT didn't build the road.  Elkhart County built the road.  I'm not sure why INDOT should automatically be responsible for the road just because it's nice now.  Reagan Parkway in Hendricks County would fall into the same boat.

It would be nice for INDOT to take the road so it can get a number, but they are under no obligation to do so.

I think INDOT was offered RR Pkwy by hendricks county and they declined. 

Questions: (1) doesn't INDOT have a hard mileage cap; and (2) why would a state take over maintenance of a facility constructed by the relevant county -- especially with ostensibly a significant $$ amount attached to do so -- unless there were a pressing need for such an action.

[silverback1065]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

I find it pretty inexcusable that CR 17 near Elkhart isn't still a state highway.  INDOT trying to absolve itself from as much responsibility as possible, as usual.

INDOT didn't build the road.  Elkhart County built the road.  I'm not sure why INDOT should automatically be responsible for the road just because it's nice now.  Reagan Parkway in Hendricks County would fall into the same boat.

It would be nice for INDOT to take the road so it can get a number, but they are under no obligation to do so.

I think INDOT was offered RR Pkwy by hendricks county and they declined. 

Questions: (1) doesn't INDOT have a hard mileage cap; and (2) why would a state take over maintenance of a facility constructed by the relevant county -- especially with ostensibly a significant $$ amount attached to do so -- unless there were a pressing need for such an action.

1 - they do, but they aren't really close to hitting it
2 - i think the county was going to basically let them finish what they started, they wanted them to swap roads where 267 would be signed on RR Pkwy and old 267 would go to the county

unrelated but i think CR 17 could be SR 120, it's weird it just dies at some random intersection where it does, it's a major highway up there.

[NWI_Irish96]

The existing SR 17 would better fit the grid as SR 21 and would allow CR 17 near Elkhart (the extension of M-217) to be numbered SR 17 if INDOT were ever to pick it up.

I find it pretty inexcusable that CR 17 near Elkhart isn't still a state highway.  INDOT trying to absolve itself from as much responsibility as possible, as usual.

INDOT didn't build the road.  Elkhart County built the road.  I'm not sure why INDOT should automatically be responsible for the road just because it's nice now.  Reagan Parkway in Hendricks County would fall into the same boat.

It would be nice for INDOT to take the road so it can get a number, but they are under no obligation to do so.

I think INDOT was offered RR Pkwy by hendricks county and they declined. 

Questions: (1) doesn't INDOT have a hard mileage cap; and (2) why would a state take over maintenance of a facility constructed by the relevant county -- especially with ostensibly a significant $$ amount attached to do so -- unless there were a pressing need for such an action.

1 - they do, but they aren't really close to hitting it
2 - i think the county was going to basically let them finish what they started, they wanted them to swap roads where 267 would be signed on RR Pkwy and old 267 would go to the county

unrelated but i think CR 17 could be SR 120, it's weird it just dies at some random intersection where it does, it's a major highway up there.

If INDOT does ever take over Reagan Pkwy, I wouldn't number it 267.  Would cause too much confusion with people who might think you're referring to the old 267.

120 used to go all the way into Elkhart to Jackson/Goshen, where it ended at US 20.  Once the 20 bypass was built, 120 was then disconnected from 20, and some point later Elkhart took over their portion so thus the end at CR 15.  I would imagine that if INDOT ever took over CR 17, the county would take back that mile or so of 120 west of there.

[2trailertrucker]

Regarding moving 267 to  RR Parkway:
267 has been moved in the past. The locals refer to the original section as "Old 267" , and there is no confusion.

The fact that RR Pkwy is moving north toward Whitestown in Boone county might mean that INDOT takes it over, since it would utilize Marion (As Ameriplex Pkwy), Hendricks, then Boone Counties. The part from north of Brownsburg to I-65 is still numbered as 267, where south of I-74 is county owned.

It wouldn't be a stretch for INDOT to take it over and number it 267. As far as the locals being "confused" , C'mon Man!

[silverback1065]

It looks like right now all that will be done to the NW portion of 465 will be to completely redo the 865 interchange, and widen 465 from 86th to US 31, the US 421 interchange looks to be staying the same.  All the exit and entrances from the left will be changed to the right at 865.  This is very early in the planning phases, so this will likely change.  US 421 exit might be a SPUI if they decide to include it in this project.  96TH St will be realigned under 465, and the bridge over nothing (used to be RR tracks) may turn into a box culvert with a trail in it instead of a waterway, i think that will be the farm heritage trail. 

[tdindy88]

Will the 465/865 interchange look the same but with the right exits instead? I'm also guessing/hoping that the 465 part of the interchange will feature three lanes on the ramps instead of two. I'm sure that's a major contributor to the congestion there now.

[silverback1065]

Will the 465/865 interchange look the same but with the right exits instead? I'm also guessing/hoping that the 465 part of the interchange will feature three lanes on the ramps instead of two. I'm sure that's a major contributor to the congestion there now.

i'll take another look at the rendering tomorrow.  there are currently 3 alternatives, all are pretty much the same look and all will have exits from the right.  the main difference between them is what is done with the 465 nb to 865 wb ramp, it's always on the right, but some have larger radii

[silverback1065]

465 will be 4 through lanes throughout the interchange.  865 east will come in from the right at 2 lanes.  865 west will leave from the right as 3 lanes. 

[NWI_Irish96]

Construction on the US 41 (Indianapolis Blvd) railroad overpass in Highland is now finished.  Road had been down to one lane each direction but now has both lanes open in both directions.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Two new overhead gantries were built along I-80/94 westbound in the Lake Station area, in an effort to better guide drivers to which lanes are for Interstate 65 and which lanes are thru for the Borman. It's in a style very similar to what you see in Minnesota, with no control cities or cardinal directions mentioned (with the one exception in the second gantry, where the far right lane is marked for I-65 north and the second lane from the right is for I-65 south, all on one sign).

What's weird, however, is that only three lanes are marked for I-80/94 at that point, when the fourth lane begins to open up. However, it appears they redesigned the lane flow westbound where the fourth lane doesn't materialize until after all I-65 traffic merges in. Can anyone confirm this?

[Great Lakes Roads]

Two new overhead gantries were built along I-80/94 westbound in the Lake Station area, in an effort to better guide drivers to which lanes are for Interstate 65 and which lanes are thru for the Borman. It’s in a style very similar to what you see in Minnesota, with no control cities or cardinal directions mentioned (with the one exception in the second gantry, where the far right lane is marked for I-65 north and the second lane from the right is for I-65 south, all on one sign).

What’s weird, however, is that only three lanes are marked for I-80/94 at that point, when the fourth lane begins to open up. However, it appears they redesigned the lane flow westbound where the fourth lane doesn’t materialize until after all I-65 traffic merges in. Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, I think that is correct, and that will be a permanent traffic pattern... I think that will work out better than having all I-65 north traffic merge over a lane to continue onto I-94...

[nwi_navigator_1181]

Two new overhead gantries were built along I-80/94 westbound in the Lake Station area, in an effort to better guide drivers to which lanes are for Interstate 65 and which lanes are thru for the Borman. It's in a style very similar to what you see in Minnesota, with no control cities or cardinal directions mentioned (with the one exception in the second gantry, where the far right lane is marked for I-65 north and the second lane from the right is for I-65 south, all on one sign).

What's weird, however, is that only three lanes are marked for I-80/94 at that point, when the fourth lane begins to open up. However, it appears they redesigned the lane flow westbound where the fourth lane doesn't materialize until after all I-65 traffic merges in. Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, I think that is correct, and that will be a permanent traffic pattern... I think that will work out better than having all I-65 north traffic merge over a lane to continue onto I-94...

Having to make that merge myself, I can attest to the extreme difficulty of having to merge into the mainline while achieving the speed limit. The one working camera near the interchange confirm solid diagonal lines on the extra wide shoulder.

If it means sacrificing the westbound fourth lane until after I-65, which has no detriment to traffic flow, then so be it. That will also help traffic on the connector, which won't be forced into one lane, then forced again to shift into the mainline. Instead, the inner lane of that ramp will be the new fourth lane, while the right lane is for Broadway.

However, it creates another problem; traffic on I-80/94 has to jump two lanes to get to the Broadway lane. It probably won't be too much of an issue once the ramp to I-65 north reopens soon.

[ssummers72]

The reduction in one lane Westbound on I-80/94 was setup to allow the Northbound I-65 to Westbound I-80/94 to be a continuous travel. This new pattern was setup to balance the queues between I-80/94 and I-65, it would not eliminate them just balance them out. This queue analysis was performed by NIRPC and the FHWA's Indiana office and EPA agreed that the pollution and traffic numbers were acceptable. I have not field checked it yet, but on I-80/94 Westbound around the 15.6, the pull through sign should have been changed to "Jct I-65, 2 1/4 Miles" this was done to bring this interchange into MUTCD compliance, as all major junctions having a 2 mile advance junction sign. If you have any other questions about the project, please let me know.
Thank You

[nwi_navigator_1181]

The reduction in one lane Westbound on I-80/94 was setup to allow the Northbound I-65 to Westbound I-80/94 to be a continuous travel. This new pattern was setup to balance the queues between I-80/94 and I-65, it would not eliminate them just balance them out. This queue analysis was performed by NIRPC and the FHWA's Indiana office and EPA agreed that the pollution and traffic numbers were acceptable. I have not field checked it yet, but on I-80/94 Westbound around the 15.6, the pull through sign should have been changed to "Jct I-65, 2 1/4 Miles" this was done to bring this interchange into MUTCD compliance, as all major junctions having a 2 mile advance junction sign. If you have any other questions about the project, please let me know.
Thank You

First off, thank you so much for your input. Hearing analysis from the field is really helpful, and this lane reduction makes sense since the lionshare of the traffic is west of the I-65 Northwest Connector interchange. Also, thank you for telling me what that sign said near the Toll Road interchange. That makes it a lot more informative than the sign that it replaced ("I-94 West, I-80 West, US 6 West" ), and I couldn't tell what it said since I was heading east.

Any more plans for new or replacement gantries in that area in the future? I feel there are some signs that can be replaced with more relevant information, especially since some of the signs are still the old button copy, and there's hardly any mention of US 6 or exit 15a until you get right up to the interchange. Thank you once again for your time.

[ShawnP]

Went thru rebuild/expansion on I-65 from mm-50 to 68.

Original plan was mm-50 to mm-64 as a rebuild/expand and mm-64 to mm-68 as just a rebuild.

The build grants from 2 weeks ago gave Indiana extra money to expand mm 64 to 68. Looks like Indiana already rebuilt mm-64 to 68 so some rebuilding will happen.

MM-64 to 68 looks like a asphalt rebuild and mm-64 to 50 as concrete.

The completion date is fall of 2020.

[nwi_navigator_1181]

A new traffic pattern is in effect for I-65 northbound at the CSX/Central Avenue bridge just north of I-80/94. Northbound traffic has shifted over and is now driving over the recently finished southbound bridge. A lot of the structure is fresh; most of the concrete guardrails are tarped over (and will likely stay that way until the effects of the upcoming winter storm abate). This pattern will stay in effect until the northbound bridge is replaced, which is still on target for summer completion.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Tippecanoe County major road projects for 2019:

https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/01/14/upcoming-construction-tippecaone-county-2019/2570086002/