Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mukade]

The current I-65 widenings are also short sections.

My opinion is that the most increase in traffic flow and safety for the dollar will be based on actual traffic volumes. It would be very hard for INDOT to justify favoring only two highways when there is objective evidence suggesting the needs are higher on other highways.

One factor not mentioned for I-65 south of Indy is that the completion of I-69 should reduce some of the I-65 traffic headed to places like Nashville.

[I-39]

Pointing back to one of my posts in the US 31 upgrade thread. Go down to the fourth post to see traffic volumes and a discussion on which freeways should be widened first.

I favor spreading the upgrades across all of the Interstates rather than just widening I-65. Yes, driving I-65 is frustrating, but the same goes for sections of I-69 and I-70. I think that is the way INDOT is looking at it as well.

I rarely drive I-70 so I can't speak to that, but there are absolutely zero sections of I-69 that are only 4 lanes that are as bad as I-65. Traffic volumes may be comparable but I-69 has far, far fewer trucks.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I-65 has significantly higher accident rates than I-70.

Actually, I-69 is also very truck heavy as it is a primary corridor between Canada and the US. I maintain the two sections of I-69 in that table are legitimate. If you can find objective truck volume numbers to indicate otherwise, please share.

Those segments of I-69 are both pretty short. You're not getting held up for very long by traffic in those segments. If we're talking about getting the most increase in traffic flow and safety on the dollar, the 65 and 70 upgrades should be prioritized.

With I-65 between Indy and Louisville getting the first priority as it is a bit shorter than Indy-Chicago and Kentucky has already six laned the road throughout the state. Plus, with Tennessee now beginning to widen between Kentucky and Nashville, it will create a continuous six lane from  Indy to Nashville.

[NWI_Irish96]

The current I-65 widenings are also short sections.

My opinion is that the most increase in traffic flow and safety for the dollar will be based on actual traffic volumes. It would be very hard for INDOT to justify favoring only two highways when there is objective evidence suggesting the needs are higher on other highways.

One factor not mentioned for I-65 south of Indy is that the completion of I-69 should reduce some of the I-65 traffic headed to places like Nashville.

Sure, you can cherry pick data in lots of ways to make your argument. A better determination of need would not be traffic counts over short segments, but average traffic counts over longer stretches. You might wait a mile or two to get by a truck on 69, you can wait 10+ miles on 65.

[Crash_It]

Or even better INDOT can just implement lane restrictions and also ban trucks from passing. Can't count how many times invested been cut off by a truck just so he can pass the other one that's going 0.5mph slower.

[Max Rockatansky]

Or even better INDOT can just implement lane restrictions and also ban trucks from passing. Can't count how many times invested been cut off by a truck just so he can pass the other one that's going 0.5mph slower.

I'm sure you have video clips for every single instance you had a nominal incursion with a trucker by which you applied excessive amounts of horn to.  We don't call you "Lord Car Horn" around these parts for nothing.

[mukade]

The current I-65 widenings are also short sections.

My opinion is that the most increase in traffic flow and safety for the dollar will be based on actual traffic volumes. It would be very hard for INDOT to justify favoring only two highways when there is objective evidence suggesting the needs are higher on other highways.

One factor not mentioned for I-65 south of Indy is that the completion of I-69 should reduce some of the I-65 traffic headed to places like Nashville.

Sure, you can cherry pick data in lots of ways to make your argument. A better determination of need would not be traffic counts over short segments, but average traffic counts over longer stretches. You might wait a mile or two to get by a truck on 69, you can wait 10+ miles on 65.

Luckily, INDOT seems to be taking a more evenhanded approach that at least somewhat corresponds with traffic counts.

Since around 2005, both I-69 and I-70 each had four sections widened and I-64 is getting one section widened in addition to the approximately nine or ten I-65 widening projects. I believe a section of I-70 west of Richmond is also going to get widened.

I rarely drive I-70 so I can't speak to that, but there are absolutely zero sections of I-69 that are only 4 lanes that are as bad as I-65. Traffic volumes may be comparable but I-69 has far, far fewer trucks.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I-65 has significantly higher accident rates than I-70.

So yeah, if I was only familiar with I-65, that is the road I would favor also. But I live closer to I-69 and I-70. I can guarantee both highways carry heavy traffic volumes.

FWIW, the busiest section of I-69 has an AADT of 155K while busiest section of I-65 (other than where it overlaps with I-70 in downtown Indy) has an AADT of 126K. The I-465/I-69 north interchange is the busiest one in the Indianapolis area. So it is not like I-65 is in a league by itself.

[ilpt4u]

FWIW, the busiest section of I-69 has an AADT of 155K while busiest section of I-65 (other than where it overlaps with I-70 in downtown Indy) has an AADT of 126K. The I-465/I-69 north interchange is the busiest one in the Indianapolis area. So it is not like I-65 is in a league by itself.

To get an Apples-Apples comparison for I-69 at the Northeast Side and I-65 on the Northwest side, traffic counts on I-65 approaching the 865 exit would be a better comparison, since I-65 doesn’t carry all of its traffic to the I-465 Beltway, whereas I-69 has no such “early” split - it funnels its traffic to the Northeast corner of 465

Is 465/69 really busier than the 465/70/IND Airport interchange?

[SkyPesos]

Pointing back to one of my posts in the US 31 upgrade thread. Go down to the fourth post to see traffic volumes and a discussion on which freeways should be widened first.

I favor spreading the upgrades across all of the Interstates rather than just widening I-65. Yes, driving I-65 is frustrating, but the same goes for sections of I-69 and I-70. I think that is the way INDOT is looking at it as well.

I rarely drive I-70 so I can't speak to that, but there are absolutely zero sections of I-69 that are only 4 lanes that are as bad as I-65. Traffic volumes may be comparable but I-69 has far, far fewer trucks.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I-65 has significantly higher accident rates than I-70.

I haven't driven I-70 between Indy and Dayton in a while, so no opinions on that, but I-70 between I-57 and Indy is noticeably busy (thanks to truck traffic coming from places like Texas/Mexico towards Michigan/Canada from NB 57), but not as much as I-65.

[silverback1065]

I believe INDOT announced that I-70 from SR 1 to ohio state line will be widened.  I seem to remember hearing that the Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part will be too but I can't find info on that one.

[tdindy88]

Yeah, that Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part should be the next thing to be widened along I-70, I think it may very well begin this year.

Back to I-65 from Indy to Chicago, I would imagine that the part from SR 10 to SR 2 would be more imminent than not since they went through the trouble of widening those bridges over the Kankakee River. I would guess that widening that would be pretty simple at this stage. As for where to go next, I think they should finish widening I-65 from SR 47 up to SR 28 to create a six-lane corridor from I-865 to Lafayette. Then they can slowly go north from there and work on the White/Jasper County portion of the highway. 

[SkyPesos]

I believe INDOT announced that I-70 from SR 1 to ohio state line will be widened.  I seem to remember hearing that the Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part will be too but I can't find info on that one.

OhioDOT could look to widen their part of I-70 between the IN line and MM 29 then, if INDOT will get that far. East of MM 29, with existing ODOT widening projects wrapping up, it's pretty much 6+ lanes all the way to the I-670 split.

[mukade]

FWIW, the busiest section of I-69 has an AADT of 155K while busiest section of I-65 (other than where it overlaps with I-70 in downtown Indy) has an AADT of 126K. The I-465/I-69 north interchange is the busiest one in the Indianapolis area. So it is not like I-65 is in a league by itself.

To get an Apples-Apples comparison for I-69 at the Northeast Side and I-65 on the Northwest side, traffic counts on I-65 approaching the 865 exit would be a better comparison, since I-65 doesn’t carry all of its traffic to the I-465 Beltway, whereas I-69 has no such “early” split - it funnels its traffic to the Northeast corner of 465

Is 465/69 really busier than the 465/70/IND Airport interchange?

• I-65 just north of I-865:  79K
• I-69 just north of I-465:  155K+

This is an area that has seen tremendous growth over the last 25 years,” said Scott Manning, Deputy Director with INDOT.

If you drive the interchange during the morning or a night on a regular basis, the corridor is a very high traffic area and INDOT says it’s no surprise.

Manning said the interchange is Indiana’s busiest with nearly 100,000 drivers traveling through the area every day.

Source: How a major I-465 project will help make the I-69 corridor safer

Another way to look at it is:

• I-65 connects the largest, 2nd largest, 6th largest, and 8th largest metro areas in the state
• I-65 connects the largest, 4th largest, 8th largest, 9th largest, and 10th largest cities in the state
• I-69 connects the largest, 2nd largest, 3rd largest, 4th largest, 6th largest, 7th largest, 11th largest and 12th and largest cities in the state
• I-69 connects the largest, 3rd largest, 5th largest, and 9th largest metro areas in the state

Rank	Name	2022 Pop.	2010 Census	Change	I-65	I-69
1	Indianapolis	892,656	821,579	8.65%	X	X
2	Fort Wayne	279,228	254,161	9.86%		X
3	Evansville	117,736	120,091	-1.96%		X
4	Carmel	106,843	84,508	26.43%	X	X
5	South Bend	102,191	101,197	0.98%
6	Fishers	101,019	77,832	29.79%		X
7	Bloomington	87,603	80,612	8.67%		X
8	Hammond	74,457	80,718	-7.76%	X
9	Gary	73,886	80,155	-7.82%	X
10	Lafayette	70,185	68,925	1.83%	X
11	Noblesville	68,763	52,909	29.96%		X
12	Muncie	67,651	70,193	-3.62%		X

This is a modified list: X denotes highway is within 6.5 miles of city which is the distance from I-65 to Hammond City limits. In case the point is lost, I-65 is not the only highway deserving of upgrades.

[NWI_Irish96]

All of that there conveniently ignores that 65 connects the Chicago and Louisville metro areas, which dwarf Fort Wayne, Evansville and the rest.

[ilpt4u]

All of that there conveniently ignores that 65 connects the Chicago and Louisville metro areas, which dwarf Fort Wayne, Evansville and the rest.

Never let FACTS get in the way of a good STORY…come on, now

[dvferyance]

Yeah, that Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part should be the next thing to be widened along I-70, I think it may very well begin this year.

Back to I-65 from Indy to Chicago, I would imagine that the part from SR 10 to SR 2 would be more imminent than not since they went through the trouble of widening those bridges over the Kankakee River. I would guess that widening that would be pretty simple at this stage. As for where to go next, I think they should finish widening I-65 from SR 47 up to SR 28 to create a six-lane corridor from I-865 to Lafayette. Then they can slowly go north from there and work on the White/Jasper County portion of the highway.

The part from US 231 to SR 2 was overkill enough. Why go even further? While I supported the widening from US 30 to US 231 100% going all the way to SR 2 was not needed and was a waste of money. It's not that busy it did not need 3 lanes.

[silverback1065]

Yeah, that Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part should be the next thing to be widened along I-70, I think it may very well begin this year.

Back to I-65 from Indy to Chicago, I would imagine that the part from SR 10 to SR 2 would be more imminent than not since they went through the trouble of widening those bridges over the Kankakee River. I would guess that widening that would be pretty simple at this stage. As for where to go next, I think they should finish widening I-65 from SR 47 up to SR 28 to create a six-lane corridor from I-865 to Lafayette. Then they can slowly go north from there and work on the White/Jasper County portion of the highway.

The part from US 231 to SR 2 was overkill enough. Why go even further? While I supported the widening from US 30 to US 231 100% going all the way to SR 2 was not needed and was a waste of money. It's not that busy it did not need 3 lanes.

Can you post the traffic study you did to warrant that opinion?

[I-55]

Yeah, that Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part should be the next thing to be widened along I-70, I think it may very well begin this year.

Back to I-65 from Indy to Chicago, I would imagine that the part from SR 10 to SR 2 would be more imminent than not since they went through the trouble of widening those bridges over the Kankakee River. I would guess that widening that would be pretty simple at this stage. As for where to go next, I think they should finish widening I-65 from SR 47 up to SR 28 to create a six-lane corridor from I-865 to Lafayette. Then they can slowly go north from there and work on the White/Jasper County portion of the highway.

The part from US 231 to SR 2 was overkill enough. Why go even further? While I supported the widening from US 30 to US 231 100% going all the way to SR 2 was not needed and was a waste of money. It's not that busy it did not need 3 lanes.

Are you measuring traffic at 1 AM or anytime people are actually awake? 65 should be 6 lanes all the way from I-80/94 to TN-396 or US-412.

[Buck87]

Can you post the traffic study you did to warrant that opinion?

The "Avalanchez71" study

[SignGeniusPTOE]

All I-65 needs is a good chip and seal job, which should take it to 2050 easily.

[I-55]

All I-65 needs is a good chip and seal job, which should take it to 2050 easily.

They just did this last year on US-24 between Wabash and Peru and it sucks. If it rains at night good luck.

[silverback1065]

I don't think INDOT does chip and seals on interstates. that's just for minor roads.

[JoePCool14]

All I-65 needs is a good chip and seal job, which should take it to 2050 easily.

Chipping-and-sealing adds a third lane in each direction... how?

[Rothman]

All I-65 needs is a good chip and seal job, which should take it to 2050 easily.

Heh.  Either you're being sarcastic or are from Wyoming.

[dvferyance]

Yeah, that Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part should be the next thing to be widened along I-70, I think it may very well begin this year.

Back to I-65 from Indy to Chicago, I would imagine that the part from SR 10 to SR 2 would be more imminent than not since they went through the trouble of widening those bridges over the Kankakee River. I would guess that widening that would be pretty simple at this stage. As for where to go next, I think they should finish widening I-65 from SR 47 up to SR 28 to create a six-lane corridor from I-865 to Lafayette. Then they can slowly go north from there and work on the White/Jasper County portion of the highway.

The part from US 231 to SR 2 was overkill enough. Why go even further? While I supported the widening from US 30 to US 231 100% going all the way to SR 2 was not needed and was a waste of money. It's not that busy it did not need 3 lanes.

Can you post the traffic study you did to warrant that opinion?

Just take a drive down there. Have you ever been there? Nothing but cornfields as for as the eye can see. The development stops around 231 by then you are out of Chicagoland.

[NWI_Irish96]

Yeah, that Mt. Comfort to SR 3 part should be the next thing to be widened along I-70, I think it may very well begin this year.

Back to I-65 from Indy to Chicago, I would imagine that the part from SR 10 to SR 2 would be more imminent than not since they went through the trouble of widening those bridges over the Kankakee River. I would guess that widening that would be pretty simple at this stage. As for where to go next, I think they should finish widening I-65 from SR 47 up to SR 28 to create a six-lane corridor from I-865 to Lafayette. Then they can slowly go north from there and work on the White/Jasper County portion of the highway.

The part from US 231 to SR 2 was overkill enough. Why go even further? While I supported the widening from US 30 to US 231 100% going all the way to SR 2 was not needed and was a waste of money. It's not that busy it did not need 3 lanes.

Can you post the traffic study you did to warrant that opinion?

Just take a drive down there. Have you ever been there? Nothing but cornfields as for as the eye can see. The development stops around 231 by then you are out of Chicagoland.

Development is not the only indication, and really not even the primary indication, that 6-laning is warranted. Indy-Chicago is one of the highest truck corridors in the nation, regardless of whether they're driving through dense development or cornfields.