More US 31 upgrades between Indy and South Bend

[ITB]

Don't think this has been mentioned yet. Earlier this month, INDOT let the contract for the Baker's Corner interchange at 236th Street in Hamilton County. HIS Constructors Inc., an Indianapolis firm, with a bid of $20,988,109, was awarded the contract, beating out Milestone Contractors and Rieth Riley Construction, among others.

[NWI_Irish96]

Don't think this has been mentioned yet. Earlier this month, INDOT let the contract for the Baker's Corner interchange at 236th Street in Hamilton County. HIS Constructors Inc., an Indianapolis firm, with a bid of $20,988,109, was awarded the contract, beating out Milestone Contractors and Rieth Riley Construction, among others.

Last time I went that way, I noticed the Speedway/Burger King had been closed. I spent a lot of money at that place over the years.

[bmeiser]

Don't think this has been mentioned yet. Earlier this month, INDOT let the contract for the Baker's Corner interchange at 236th Street in Hamilton County. HIS Constructors Inc., an Indianapolis firm, with a bid of $20,988,109, was awarded the contract, beating out Milestone Contractors and Rieth Riley Construction, among others.

Last time I went that way, I noticed the Speedway/Burger King had been closed. I spent a lot of money at that place over the years.

Last time I went by there, everything but the sign had been demolished. I'll be passing by this weekend. Curious to see if anything else is demolished at that intersection.

[westerninterloper]

I live in Terre Haute and we are not a priority at all in this state. A NE bypass will never happen. There's too much buildup on the north side of town, Rose Hulman is in the way, etc. If they ever build anything it would probably be a bypass around West Terre Haute connecting SR 63 to I-70.

Frankly I think INDOT will eventually just connect US 150 to SR 63 north of the city and call it a day. Then they can hand over 150 through West TH to the county. I don't see us getting any sort of bypass and I question if it's even needed anymore. The area by the mall was the worst part and now our mall is almost dead.

I used to live in Terre Haute, and there is a perfectly good reason why it isn't a priority.  It is a smallish city in a part of the state declining in population.  Bypassing the city north and south would be helpful to those who currently drive through it, but how many people actually do that?  I am glad that IN-641 was done, and getting that traffic off US-41 helped, but it always seemed to me that most of that traffic down by the mall was local in nature.

I grew up in Terre Haute and remember hearing ideas about a northeast bypass connecting 46 and 63. I don't remember if a new Wabash River bridge was in the cards, or whether the bypass would connect north of Ft Harrison Rd, then back south on 41 to North 63, using the existing bridge.

In the 1980s, the state offered TH money to construct a west-side bypass, from 41/150 near Ivy Tech to 63 North. I recall that the cost of the Wabash River bridge, and Mayor Chalos' concerns about lost business in the city with the bypass ended that idea, but that the railroad overpass on North 3rd street built in the 1980s was one response to the need for traffic to move more quickly through the city.

As for I-69, Terre Haute officials were strongly behind the US 41-I-70 alternative, which would have built a bypass (now 641) and made US 41 limited access to Evansville, not too hard to do. My folks did not like this plan because they live just off US 41 and would have to use access roads and alternative routes to get around or onto the highway. Early in the process, the scope of I-69 was to connect Indianapolis and Evansville, but in the late 1980s, i think, the state recalibrated to only look at connecting Bloomington to Evansville, which sealed the fate of the Terre Haute route.

Terre Haute probably does not need a NE bypass; the through traffic between SR 63 North and I-70 East is probably very small. And there's really nothing on the NE side of Terre Haute that needs a limited access bypass; Fruitridge and Ft. Harrison serve the industrial area well as a NE bypass as it is.

TH has seen a lot of investment in its roads since the mid-1980s; I remember as a kid hearing that there were almost no traffic improvements in the city between the 1940s and 1980s. Since that time, several railroad overpasses, the Brown Ext, SR 641, changes to the Maple Ave/41 interchange, First Street, and Margaret Ave are some of the major developments and reconstructions. most of those are city projects, but I wonder what other investments the city needs from INDOT - a third lane on I-70 would do wonders. 

[Life in Paradise]

I live in Terre Haute and we are not a priority at all in this state. A NE bypass will never happen. There's too much buildup on the north side of town, Rose Hulman is in the way, etc. If they ever build anything it would probably be a bypass around West Terre Haute connecting SR 63 to I-70.

Frankly I think INDOT will eventually just connect US 150 to SR 63 north of the city and call it a day. Then they can hand over 150 through West TH to the county. I don't see us getting any sort of bypass and I question if it's even needed anymore. The area by the mall was the worst part and now our mall is almost dead.

I used to live in Terre Haute, and there is a perfectly good reason why it isn't a priority.  It is a smallish city in a part of the state declining in population.  Bypassing the city north and south would be helpful to those who currently drive through it, but how many people actually do that?  I am glad that IN-641 was done, and getting that traffic off US-41 helped, but it always seemed to me that most of that traffic down by the mall was local in nature.

I grew up in Terre Haute and remember hearing ideas about a northeast bypass connecting 46 and 63. I don't remember if a new Wabash River bridge was in the cards, or whether the bypass would connect north of Ft Harrison Rd, then back south on 41 to North 63, using the existing bridge.

In the 1980s, the state offered TH money to construct a west-side bypass, from 41/150 near Ivy Tech to 63 North. I recall that the cost of the Wabash River bridge, and Mayor Chalos' concerns about lost business in the city with the bypass ended that idea, but that the railroad overpass on North 3rd street built in the 1980s was one response to the need for traffic to move more quickly through the city.

As for I-69, Terre Haute officials were strongly behind the US 41-I-70 alternative, which would have built a bypass (now 641) and made US 41 limited access to Evansville, not too hard to do. My folks did not like this plan because they live just off US 41 and would have to use access roads and alternative routes to get around or onto the highway. Early in the process, the scope of I-69 was to connect Indianapolis and Evansville, but in the late 1980s, i think, the state recalibrated to only look at connecting Bloomington to Evansville, which sealed the fate of the Terre Haute route.

Terre Haute probably does not need a NE bypass; the through traffic between SR 63 North and I-70 East is probably very small. And there's really nothing on the NE side of Terre Haute that needs a limited access bypass; Fruitridge and Ft. Harrison serve the industrial area well as a NE bypass as it is.

TH has seen a lot of investment in its roads since the mid-1980s; I remember as a kid hearing that there were almost no traffic improvements in the city between the 1940s and 1980s. Since that time, several railroad overpasses, the Brown Ext, SR 641, changes to the Maple Ave/41 interchange, First Street, and Margaret Ave are some of the major developments and reconstructions. most of those are city projects, but I wonder what other investments the city needs from INDOT - a third lane on I-70 would do wonders.

I would agree that the third lane on I-70 is long, long overdue.  It almost could be six lanes all the way to Indianapolis.  With the construction of I-69 as well as the final completion of IN-641, I've noticed anytime that I have driven to Terre Haute that the traffic on US41 south of I-70 has been much more bearable.  Sounds like the mayor of Terre Haute had a bit of the spirit of the city fathers of Evansville back in the 60s when US 41 was planned with traffic lights so travelers could easily get on and off the road to spend money in Stoplight City (construction phase in early 70s).

[silverback1065]

INDOT wants to widen it to 6 lanes throughout the whole state. 65 and 70 are the only 2 that they plan on doing this to (80, 90, and 94 I am not counting on this list) 74 and 69 will never likely need that kind of widening.

[Terry Shea]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

[SEWIGuy]

I live in Terre Haute and we are not a priority at all in this state. A NE bypass will never happen. There's too much buildup on the north side of town, Rose Hulman is in the way, etc. If they ever build anything it would probably be a bypass around West Terre Haute connecting SR 63 to I-70.

Frankly I think INDOT will eventually just connect US 150 to SR 63 north of the city and call it a day. Then they can hand over 150 through West TH to the county. I don't see us getting any sort of bypass and I question if it's even needed anymore. The area by the mall was the worst part and now our mall is almost dead.

I used to live in Terre Haute, and there is a perfectly good reason why it isn't a priority.  It is a smallish city in a part of the state declining in population.  Bypassing the city north and south would be helpful to those who currently drive through it, but how many people actually do that?  I am glad that IN-641 was done, and getting that traffic off US-41 helped, but it always seemed to me that most of that traffic down by the mall was local in nature.

I grew up in Terre Haute and remember hearing ideas about a northeast bypass connecting 46 and 63. I don't remember if a new Wabash River bridge was in the cards, or whether the bypass would connect north of Ft Harrison Rd, then back south on 41 to North 63, using the existing bridge.

In the 1980s, the state offered TH money to construct a west-side bypass, from 41/150 near Ivy Tech to 63 North. I recall that the cost of the Wabash River bridge, and Mayor Chalos' concerns about lost business in the city with the bypass ended that idea, but that the railroad overpass on North 3rd street built in the 1980s was one response to the need for traffic to move more quickly through the city.

As for I-69, Terre Haute officials were strongly behind the US 41-I-70 alternative, which would have built a bypass (now 641) and made US 41 limited access to Evansville, not too hard to do. My folks did not like this plan because they live just off US 41 and would have to use access roads and alternative routes to get around or onto the highway. Early in the process, the scope of I-69 was to connect Indianapolis and Evansville, but in the late 1980s, i think, the state recalibrated to only look at connecting Bloomington to Evansville, which sealed the fate of the Terre Haute route.

Terre Haute probably does not need a NE bypass; the through traffic between SR 63 North and I-70 East is probably very small. And there's really nothing on the NE side of Terre Haute that needs a limited access bypass; Fruitridge and Ft. Harrison serve the industrial area well as a NE bypass as it is.

TH has seen a lot of investment in its roads since the mid-1980s; I remember as a kid hearing that there were almost no traffic improvements in the city between the 1940s and 1980s. Since that time, several railroad overpasses, the Brown Ext, SR 641, changes to the Maple Ave/41 interchange, First Street, and Margaret Ave are some of the major developments and reconstructions. most of those are city projects, but I wonder what other investments the city needs from INDOT - a third lane on I-70 would do wonders. 

Thank you for this!  Not only informative, but made me smile recognizing some of the street names from my time there over 25 years ago.  And Mayor Chalos! 

[I-55]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

[sparker]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

But yet they continue to eke out freeway mileage from Indy to Kokomo.  It's the sections with a lot of intersections and private access between Kokomo and Plymouth that are putting INDOT in a tight spot -- their smaller-scale fixes (the J-turn approach in particular) don't seem to be flying with the locals; it seems that either going all-out as a full freeway or simply leaving it as is for the time being may be the only options here.  If, as you suggest, INDOT has priorities lying elsewhere, then it's likely that internal pressures for some type of "free flow" (hence the problematic J-turn/RIRO option) will simply dissipate and things north of Kokomo will remain static until there's sufficient funds -- and agency bandwidth -- to fully build out US 31 as a full freeway. 

[bmeiser]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

But yet they continue to eke out freeway mileage from Indy to Kokomo.  It's the sections with a lot of intersections and private access between Kokomo and Plymouth that are putting INDOT in a tight spot -- their smaller-scale fixes (the J-turn approach in particular) don't seem to be flying with the locals; it seems that either going all-out as a full freeway or simply leaving it as is for the time being may be the only options here.  If, as you suggest, INDOT has priorities lying elsewhere, then it's likely that internal pressures for some type of "free flow" (hence the problematic J-turn/RIRO option) will simply dissipate and things north of Kokomo will remain static until there's sufficient funds -- and agency bandwidth -- to fully build out US 31 as a full freeway.

I would MUCH rather things stay the way they are now than money be wasted on a temporary "fix" . Prioritize intersections that need interchanges by traffic counts / safety concerns, etc and build as funds allow. Buy up properties with driveways along the route as they go up for sale, like in Tipton county.

[I-55]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

But yet they continue to eke out freeway mileage from Indy to Kokomo.  It's the sections with a lot of intersections and private access between Kokomo and Plymouth that are putting INDOT in a tight spot -- their smaller-scale fixes (the J-turn approach in particular) don't seem to be flying with the locals; it seems that either going all-out as a full freeway or simply leaving it as is for the time being may be the only options here.  If, as you suggest, INDOT has priorities lying elsewhere, then it's likely that internal pressures for some type of "free flow" (hence the problematic J-turn/RIRO option) will simply dissipate and things north of Kokomo will remain static until there's sufficient funds -- and agency bandwidth -- to fully build out US 31 as a full freeway.

The J-turns were so unpopular that they ruled them out for US-30 upgrades (in Allen County at least).

[NWI_Irish96]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

But yet they continue to eke out freeway mileage from Indy to Kokomo.  It's the sections with a lot of intersections and private access between Kokomo and Plymouth that are putting INDOT in a tight spot -- their smaller-scale fixes (the J-turn approach in particular) don't seem to be flying with the locals; it seems that either going all-out as a full freeway or simply leaving it as is for the time being may be the only options here.  If, as you suggest, INDOT has priorities lying elsewhere, then it's likely that internal pressures for some type of "free flow" (hence the problematic J-turn/RIRO option) will simply dissipate and things north of Kokomo will remain static until there's sufficient funds -- and agency bandwidth -- to fully build out US 31 as a full freeway. 

"Doesn't fly with the locals" is not high on my list of reasons not to do something. The J-turns are fine. They accomplish the goal of making a non-stop trip possible without diverting funds from projects that are more necessary than having a full freeway between Plymouth and Kokomo.

[sparker]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

But yet they continue to eke out freeway mileage from Indy to Kokomo.  It's the sections with a lot of intersections and private access between Kokomo and Plymouth that are putting INDOT in a tight spot -- their smaller-scale fixes (the J-turn approach in particular) don't seem to be flying with the locals; it seems that either going all-out as a full freeway or simply leaving it as is for the time being may be the only options here.  If, as you suggest, INDOT has priorities lying elsewhere, then it's likely that internal pressures for some type of "free flow" (hence the problematic J-turn/RIRO option) will simply dissipate and things north of Kokomo will remain static until there's sufficient funds -- and agency bandwidth -- to fully build out US 31 as a full freeway. 

"Doesn't fly with the locals" is not high on my list of reasons not to do something. The J-turns are fine. They accomplish the goal of making a non-stop trip possible without diverting funds from projects that are more necessary than having a full freeway between Plymouth and Kokomo.

OK, INDOT is in the process of making 31 a full freeway from Indy to Kokomo; they did so Plymouth-South Bend years ago.  Why should those residing in between not be afforded equal treatment?  From one who has endured J-turns and/or Michigan Lefts in various venues, they are at minimum a PITA and at worst a dangerous proposition -- two instances of having to pull out into traffic, one into a left lane, plus a stop and a hard right (all right, a little ameliorated if a dedicated RH turn lane is provided!) -- all to provide through traffic from Indy to South Bend a "free flow" experience sans those signals which provided safe passage across the corridor to those "locals".  Obviously, the only way to actually solve the issues is to do what was originally stated years ago as the plans for the 31 corridor -- an Interstate-grade freeway for the full distance.  Yeah, it'll take a bit more time than slapping a "band-aid" on the problem and declaring it solved, but absent an influx of dollars that would allow multiple statewide projects to be tackled simultaneously (or even within the same STIP period!), it's the rational way to do things.  Sometime going into overtime is a better approach than constantly moving the goalposts just to give the impression that one is actually addressing the problems.  I'll use CA's approach with CA (formerly US) 99 as an example -- the first actual freeway section from greater L.A. to Sacramento, the Manteca bypass, was built in 1952 -- but while originally the selected route for I-5, that status was removed with that Interstate's relocation to a new-alignment freeway in 1957; by then, only a few towns (Delano, Tulare, Chowchilla, etc.) had freeway bypasses -- and that precious 90% federal share was shifted westward to the new facility.  So the 99 improvements proceeded one by one until 66 years after originally started -- with the 2018 full opening of the south Merced County section -- the freeway was completed (the parallel I-5 was done through the region by 1981).  A decidedly long haul -- but for 299 miles the local populations have safe -- and frequent -- passage across and onto the 99 corridor.  The question arises -- do the folks between Kokomo and Plymouth deserve less?     

[NWI_Irish96]

What does any of this have to do with US-31 upgrades?

Places INDOT is likely to spend their money before making more significant upgrades (like making it a freeway) to US-31. INDOT has expressed more interest in those projects than 31.

But yet they continue to eke out freeway mileage from Indy to Kokomo.  It's the sections with a lot of intersections and private access between Kokomo and Plymouth that are putting INDOT in a tight spot -- their smaller-scale fixes (the J-turn approach in particular) don't seem to be flying with the locals; it seems that either going all-out as a full freeway or simply leaving it as is for the time being may be the only options here.  If, as you suggest, INDOT has priorities lying elsewhere, then it's likely that internal pressures for some type of "free flow" (hence the problematic J-turn/RIRO option) will simply dissipate and things north of Kokomo will remain static until there's sufficient funds -- and agency bandwidth -- to fully build out US 31 as a full freeway. 

"Doesn't fly with the locals" is not high on my list of reasons not to do something. The J-turns are fine. They accomplish the goal of making a non-stop trip possible without diverting funds from projects that are more necessary than having a full freeway between Plymouth and Kokomo.

OK, INDOT is in the process of making 31 a full freeway from Indy to Kokomo; they did so Plymouth-South Bend years ago.  Why should those residing in between not be afforded equal treatment?  From one who has endured J-turns and/or Michigan Lefts in various venues, they are at minimum a PITA and at worst a dangerous proposition -- two instances of having to pull out into traffic, one into a left lane, plus a stop and a hard right (all right, a little ameliorated if a dedicated RH turn lane is provided!) -- all to provide through traffic from Indy to South Bend a "free flow" experience sans those signals which provided safe passage across the corridor to those "locals".  Obviously, the only way to actually solve the issues is to do what was originally stated years ago as the plans for the 31 corridor -- an Interstate-grade freeway for the full distance.  Yeah, it'll take a bit more time than slapping a "band-aid" on the problem and declaring it solved, but absent an influx of dollars that would allow multiple statewide projects to be tackled simultaneously (or even within the same STIP period!), it's the rational way to do things.  Sometime going into overtime is a better approach than constantly moving the goalposts just to give the impression that one is actually addressing the problems.  I'll use CA's approach with CA (formerly US) 99 as an example -- the first actual freeway section from greater L.A. to Sacramento, the Manteca bypass, was built in 1952 -- but while originally the selected route for I-5, that status was removed with that Interstate's relocation to a new-alignment freeway in 1957; by then, only a few towns (Delano, Tulare, Chowchilla, etc.) had freeway bypasses -- and that precious 90% federal share was shifted westward to the new facility.  So the 99 improvements proceeded one by one until 66 years after originally started -- with the 2018 full opening of the south Merced County section -- the freeway was completed (the parallel I-5 was done through the region by 1981).  A decidedly long haul -- but for 299 miles the local populations have safe -- and frequent -- passage across and onto the 99 corridor.  The question arises -- do the folks between Kokomo and Plymouth deserve less?     

You're talking about a limited pie of highway dollars and diverting a substantial share of it to an area with lower traffic volumes and accident rates compared to things like expanding 65 and 70 to six lanes in spots with much higher traffic volumes and accident rates, so it's not about what people of one particular area deserve, it's about what creates the most safety with the money that's available.

Now, if J-turns are truly less safe than stoplights, then I would agree let's not do them and wait until it can be done better.

[tdindy88]

At the very minimum something should be done with US 31 from Kokomo to Peru. From just north of US 24 to Plymouth could remain exactly as it is for a long time. Just bump up the speed limit. There's almost nothing along that stretch that even needs a J-turn intersection, let alone an interchange. Maybe an exit at SR 10 and a bridge over the railroad near Plymouth, that's it.

[sprjus4]

^ First, the legislature needs to amend state law to permit 65 mph or 70 mph posted speed limits on non-limited-access highways, and 70 mph on limited access highways not designated interstate highways.

Which, IMO, needs to happen regardless. There's no excuse to still be sticking with artificially low, slogging 60 mph limits that currently exist.

That would improve the situation though, in the short term. Upgrade areas that need it (high volume intersections) with true interchange / freeway designs, then leave the rural, non-problematic areas be for the time being, with a freeway speed limit in place.

[sparker]

You're talking about a limited pie of highway dollars and diverting a substantial share of it to an area with lower traffic volumes and accident rates compared to things like expanding 65 and 70 to six lanes in spots with much higher traffic volumes and accident rates, so it's not about what people of one particular area deserve, it's about what creates the most safety with the money that's available.

Now, if J-turns are truly less safe than stoplights, then I would agree let's not do them and wait until it can be done better.

That's more or less what I was saying -- don't do anything with 31 beyond what's in the Indy-Kokomo hopper immediately -- but don't spend money on half-assed solutions either!  Unless there's pressing safety issues, just leave the corridor as is until there's available money to provide a final and permanent configuration.  If I-65 and I-70 need to be expanded to 6 lanes, then by all means do that first -- then address upgrading US 31 to a freeway as funding allows; if that's a piece at a time, then that's what needs to occur.  But IMO the most difficult (Kokomo to US 24) section should be prioritized if for no reason than to minimize inflation-related construction cost increases for the segment requiring the more comprehensive treatment; the northern sections with less private access issues and better geometry can be addressed down the road.   

[I-39]

You're talking about a limited pie of highway dollars and diverting a substantial share of it to an area with lower traffic volumes and accident rates compared to things like expanding 65 and 70 to six lanes in spots with much higher traffic volumes and accident rates, so it's not about what people of one particular area deserve, it's about what creates the most safety with the money that's available.

Now, if J-turns are truly less safe than stoplights, then I would agree let's not do them and wait until it can be done better.

That's more or less what I was saying -- don't do anything with 31 beyond what's in the Indy-Kokomo hopper immediately -- but don't spend money on half-assed solutions either!  Unless there's pressing safety issues, just leave the corridor as is until there's available money to provide a final and permanent configuration.  If I-65 and I-70 need to be expanded to 6 lanes, then by all means do that first -- then address upgrading US 31 to a freeway as funding allows; if that's a piece at a time, then that's what needs to occur.  But IMO the most difficult (Kokomo to US 24) section should be prioritized if for no reason than to minimize inflation-related construction cost increases for the segment requiring the more comprehensive treatment; the northern sections with less private access issues and better geometry can be addressed down the road.

Excellent point. InDOT is being incredibly hypocritical here. I'm by no means gung ho about upgrading US 31 between South Bend and Indianapolis, but I'll ask again, why should they deny South Bend a freeway link when the other corners of the state have them?

[NWI_Irish96]

You're talking about a limited pie of highway dollars and diverting a substantial share of it to an area with lower traffic volumes and accident rates compared to things like expanding 65 and 70 to six lanes in spots with much higher traffic volumes and accident rates, so it's not about what people of one particular area deserve, it's about what creates the most safety with the money that's available.

Now, if J-turns are truly less safe than stoplights, then I would agree let's not do them and wait until it can be done better.

That's more or less what I was saying -- don't do anything with 31 beyond what's in the Indy-Kokomo hopper immediately -- but don't spend money on half-assed solutions either!  Unless there's pressing safety issues, just leave the corridor as is until there's available money to provide a final and permanent configuration.  If I-65 and I-70 need to be expanded to 6 lanes, then by all means do that first -- then address upgrading US 31 to a freeway as funding allows; if that's a piece at a time, then that's what needs to occur.  But IMO the most difficult (Kokomo to US 24) section should be prioritized if for no reason than to minimize inflation-related construction cost increases for the segment requiring the more comprehensive treatment; the northern sections with less private access issues and better geometry can be addressed down the road.

Excellent point. InDOT is being incredibly hypocritical here. I'm by no means gung ho about upgrading US 31 between South Bend and Indianapolis, but I'll ask again, why should they deny South Bend a freeway link when the other corners of the state have them?

I don't think most people care about freeway vs non-freeway. Your average driver driving south from South Bend probably doesn't notice a significant change to the highway once they pass Plymouth. There is a very good 4 lane highway that for the most part is not unsafe and not slowing down traffic.

INDOT isn't being hypocritical if they're focusing their money where most accidents occur.

[silverback1065]

^ First, the legislature needs to amend state law to permit 65 mph or 70 mph posted speed limits on non-limited-access highways, and 70 mph on limited access highways not designated interstate highways.

Which, IMO, needs to happen regardless. There's no excuse to still be sticking with artificially low, slogging 60 mph limits that currently exist.

That would improve the situation though, in the short term. Upgrade areas that need it (high volume intersections) with true interchange / freeway designs, then leave the rural, non-problematic areas be for the time being, with a freeway speed limit in place.

There should be no state law. Let indot figure it out.

[sprjus4]

You're talking about a limited pie of highway dollars and diverting a substantial share of it to an area with lower traffic volumes and accident rates compared to things like expanding 65 and 70 to six lanes in spots with much higher traffic volumes and accident rates, so it's not about what people of one particular area deserve, it's about what creates the most safety with the money that's available.

Now, if J-turns are truly less safe than stoplights, then I would agree let's not do them and wait until it can be done better.

That's more or less what I was saying -- don't do anything with 31 beyond what's in the Indy-Kokomo hopper immediately -- but don't spend money on half-assed solutions either!  Unless there's pressing safety issues, just leave the corridor as is until there's available money to provide a final and permanent configuration.  If I-65 and I-70 need to be expanded to 6 lanes, then by all means do that first -- then address upgrading US 31 to a freeway as funding allows; if that's a piece at a time, then that's what needs to occur.  But IMO the most difficult (Kokomo to US 24) section should be prioritized if for no reason than to minimize inflation-related construction cost increases for the segment requiring the more comprehensive treatment; the northern sections with less private access issues and better geometry can be addressed down the road.

Excellent point. InDOT is being incredibly hypocritical here. I'm by no means gung ho about upgrading US 31 between South Bend and Indianapolis, but I'll ask again, why should they deny South Bend a freeway link when the other corners of the state have them?

I don't think most people care about freeway vs non-freeway. Your average driver driving south from South Bend probably doesn't notice a significant change to the highway once they pass Plymouth. There is a very good 4 lane highway that for the most part is not unsafe and not slowing down traffic.

INDOT isn't being hypocritical if they're focusing their money where most accidents occur.

I've said it before, a big difference would be made if motorists were allowed to travel the same speed as on the interstate. 70 mph. Freeway or non-freeway.

[cjw2001]

INDOT to Host Public Meeting on U.S. 31 project in Hamilton County
HAMILTON COUNTY, Ind. - The Indiana Department of Transportation will host a public meeting on the Limited Access Project on U.S. 31 in Hamilton County.

The project is on U.S. 31 from State Road 38 to 286th Street.

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 28th at the Remnant Coffee Shop (101 W. Main Street, Arcadia, IN). There will be an open house from 5-6 p.m. with a formal presentation from 6-6:30 p.m. The public will have a chance to provide public comment after the formal presentation.

The purpose of the public hearing is to offer all interested persons an opportunity to comment on the environmental document, the 800.11(e) documentation for Section 106, and the current preliminary design plans for the U.S. 31 Limited Access Project in Hamilton County.

The purpose of this project is to reduce traffic accidents along US 31 while maintaining local access by providing interchanges and overpasses at select locations.

https://www.in.gov/indot/projects/us-31-project/us-31-limited-access-upgrade-from-sr-38-to-286th-street/

[silverback1065]

INDOT to Host Public Meeting on U.S. 31 project in Hamilton County
HAMILTON COUNTY, Ind. - The Indiana Department of Transportation will host a public meeting on the Limited Access Project on U.S. 31 in Hamilton County.

The project is on U.S. 31 from State Road 38 to 286th Street.

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 28th at the Remnant Coffee Shop (101 W. Main Street, Arcadia, IN). There will be an open house from 5-6 p.m. with a formal presentation from 6-6:30 p.m. The public will have a chance to provide public comment after the formal presentation.

The purpose of the public hearing is to offer all interested persons an opportunity to comment on the environmental document, the 800.11(e) documentation for Section 106, and the current preliminary design plans for the U.S. 31 Limited Access Project in Hamilton County.

The purpose of this project is to reduce traffic accidents along US 31 while maintaining local access by providing interchanges and overpasses at select locations.

https://www.in.gov/indot/projects/us-31-project/us-31-limited-access-upgrade-from-sr-38-to-286th-street/

Interested in what will happen at 296th St. that cemetery will make things difficult. don't like the idea of a RIRO at 286th, but I bet that is temporary.

[I-39]

INDOT to Host Public Meeting on U.S. 31 project in Hamilton County
HAMILTON COUNTY, Ind. - The Indiana Department of Transportation will host a public meeting on the Limited Access Project on U.S. 31 in Hamilton County.

The project is on U.S. 31 from State Road 38 to 286th Street.

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 28th at the Remnant Coffee Shop (101 W. Main Street, Arcadia, IN). There will be an open house from 5-6 p.m. with a formal presentation from 6-6:30 p.m. The public will have a chance to provide public comment after the formal presentation.

The purpose of the public hearing is to offer all interested persons an opportunity to comment on the environmental document, the 800.11(e) documentation for Section 106, and the current preliminary design plans for the U.S. 31 Limited Access Project in Hamilton County.

The purpose of this project is to reduce traffic accidents along US 31 while maintaining local access by providing interchanges and overpasses at select locations.

https://www.in.gov/indot/projects/us-31-project/us-31-limited-access-upgrade-from-sr-38-to-286th-street/

Interested in what will happen at 296th St. that cemetery will make things difficult. don't like the idea of a RIRO at 286th, but I bet that is temporary.

The never ending saga of the US 31 upgrade continues.

Seriously, just finish the freeway between Indianapolis and Kokomo and leave the rest alone for now. They need to finish widening I-65 between Indianapolis and Kentucky.