Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

[JREwing78]

I've seen examples of 14 and 16-foot wide concrete slabs laid down, with the intention that the outside rumble strips are in the same block of pavement as the main travel lanes (presumably it holds up better there). I've also seen wider lanes used with a single-lane ramp, that then narrow down to 12-foot when another lane merges with it. I'll also occasionally see a 14' outer lane if it butts right up with a curb.

In general I don't frequently see wider than 12' lanes, but I do frequently see 11' or 11'6" lanes used. Wider lanes get expensive in terms of ROW and materials, and when the default maximum width is 8'6" (exception obviously being an "oversize load"), a wider-than-12' lane is generally unnecessary.

[sprjus4]

^ I believe 16 foot is the standard for a single-lane ramp.

[silverback1065]

^ I believe 16 foot is the standard for a single-lane ramp.

it is, at least in indiana it is.

[Rick Powell]

I've seen examples of 14 and 16-foot wide concrete slabs laid down, with the intention that the outside rumble strips are in the same block of pavement as the main travel lanes (presumably it holds up better there). I've also seen wider lanes used with a single-lane ramp, that then narrow down to 12-foot when another lane merges with it. I'll also occasionally see a 14' outer lane if it butts right up with a curb.

In general I don't frequently see wider than 12' lanes, but I do frequently see 11' or 11'6" lanes used. Wider lanes get expensive in terms of ROW and materials, and when the default maximum width is 8'6" (exception obviously being an "oversize load"), a wider-than-12' lane is generally unnecessary.

We did several sections in IL where the outer lane slab was 14' but striped at 12', to reduce loading stress at the outer edge. One of them has no rumble strips (I-80 from MP 115 to 122) because the outside shoulder was built as pavement and was to be converted to a third lane at some point and they got a reprieve from FHWA to not install the rumbles. It's directly west of the section of I-80 thru the Joliet area that is now being reconstructed.

[ITB]

In Texas, the design criteria for a Mobility Corridor (5 R) stipulates a minimum 13 foot lane width. Access the TX 2022-2 online design manual notice (Effective Date: December 19, 2022 ) and its Mobility Corridor specs here.

Aside from the above and another SH project in TX, which has proposed 13 feet outer and inner lanes, and 12 feet lanes between them (I've unsuccessfully tried to find the page again, so no link), I'm not finding much of anything regarding 13 foot lanes on the interstate system. The only place I can think of where they might be found is in an heavily traveled urban setting or, in, perhaps, the mountains somewhere where a 13 foot lane width was utilized to enhance safety.

[sprjus4]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

[jakeroot]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

[sprjus4]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

Maybe usual on a surface road. Not usual on a 70 mph urban interstate highway with trucks and cars moving that close at very high speed.

[Rick Powell]

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

Maybe usual on a surface road. Not usual on a 70 mph urban interstate highway with trucks and cars moving that close at very high speed.

When space is tight and design standards can't be met, the safety factors usually point in the direction of maximizing the shoulder instead of preserving the 12' pavement width, but anything under 11' for a lane for a limited access highway with trucks has safety implications of its own, and is usually avoided except in the most extremely constrained conditions.

[skluth]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

Maybe usual on a surface road. Not usual on a 70 mph urban interstate highway with trucks and cars moving that close at very high speed.

An urban interstate should not have a 70 mph speed limit

[sprjus4]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

Maybe usual on a surface road. Not usual on a 70 mph urban interstate highway with trucks and cars moving that close at very high speed.

An urban interstate should not have a 70 mph speed limit

70 mph is perfectly fine on an urban interstate.

[abqtraveler]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

Maybe usual on a surface road. Not usual on a 70 mph urban interstate highway with trucks and cars moving that close at very high speed.

An urban interstate should not have a 70 mph speed limit

70 mph is perfectly fine on an urban interstate.

The speed limit on an urban freeway should be set based on its design.

[sprjus4]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

They are dangerous? I get it if they were like 9 feet, but 11 feet is not an unusual width IMO.

Maybe usual on a surface road. Not usual on a 70 mph urban interstate highway with trucks and cars moving that close at very high speed.

An urban interstate should not have a 70 mph speed limit

70 mph is perfectly fine on an urban interstate.

The speed limit on an urban freeway should be set based on its design.

I agree, not a blanket "acceptable"  urban speed of 55, 60, or 65 mph.

[DJStephens]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

Believe this has been done, both in Austin, and in el Paso.  The "on the cheap" adding of a fourth travel lane, on I-10, E of McRae (Exit 28, I-10)  was done in this fashion.  They apparently got an exception to not have a full L shoulder on this stretch, there is only about 2 feet from L inner yellow line to base of double faced CBR. I don't believe he was involved, but it screams "Pete Rahn".   A lot of design regression clearly visible in El Paso District.   

[sprjus4]

^ I believe I-35E north of Dallas was also lane width reduced for widening.

The ongoing Loop 1604 (effectively an urban interstate highway) widening in north San Antonio calls for 11 ft lanes in some areas to squeeze within the existing right of way.

[rte66man]

Texas has actually reduced widths on certain urban interstates and freeways to 11 ft to cut down costs... very dangerous.

The 35E widening from Denton south to 635 has 11 ft lanes but that was always intended as a temporary measure Phase 2 is underway and those lanes are supposed to end up as standard 12ft widths.

[SSR_317]

Here's a unique name that has never been used before - MLK Blvd, Veterans Blvd, etc.

I know you're being sarcastic, but Indy already has A Dr. Marlin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, to the Northwest of Downtown, from West Street at North Street & Indiana Avenue, to Michigan Road at 38h Street near the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Oldfields.

Perhaps the section of what will become former SR 37 between Harding & Epler could be named after some USELESS politician, since we here in Indiana have an overabundance of those.

[sprjus4]

Here's a unique name that has never been used before - MLK Blvd, Veterans Blvd, etc.

I know you're being sarcastic, but Indy already has A Dr. Marlin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, to the Northwest of Downtown, from West Street at North Street & Indiana Avenue, to Michigan Road at 38h Street near the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Oldfields.

Easy fix - MLK Parkway.

Perhaps the section of what will become former SR 37 between Harding & Epler could be named after some USELESS politician, since we here in Indiana have an overabundance of those.

Yes! How could I forget this. Be sure to add "Memorial Parkway"  at the end too.

[edwaleni]

Here's a unique name that has never been used before - MLK Blvd, Veterans Blvd, etc.

I know you're being sarcastic, but Indy already has A Dr. Marlin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, to the Northwest of Downtown, from West Street at North Street & Indiana Avenue, to Michigan Road at 38h Street near the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Oldfields.

Perhaps the section of what will become former SR 37 between Harding & Epler could be named after some USELESS politician, since we here in Indiana have an overabundance of those.

I would probably name it after the Fletcher Family who created Sunshine Gardens on Epler. It used to be the Fletcher Farm and they created the first suburban development on it.

[mvak36]

It looks like someone at Google Maps jumped the gun and labeled SR-37 all the way to I-465 as I-69. I know a long time ago we used to be able to submit corrections but I don't think they've had that option recently.

[cjw2001]

It looks like someone at Google Maps jumped the gun and labeled SR-37 all the way to I-465 as I-69. I know a long time ago we used to be able to submit corrections but I don't think they've had that option recently.

In the old times Google Mapmaker existed to allow user input and there were Google Maps Regional Leads (like myself) that kept the map data in check - then Google decided they didn't want direct user input any more after a few cases of map vandalism.  There is a way to submit limited changes directly from the Google Maps interface but it has a low chance of being acted upon -- right click on the map where the problem is and select "Report a data problem".

[silverback1065]

It looks like someone at Google Maps jumped the gun and labeled SR-37 all the way to I-465 as I-69. I know a long time ago we used to be able to submit corrections but I don't think they've had that option recently.

In the old times Google Mapmaker existed to allow user input and there were Google Maps Regional Leads (like myself) that kept the map data in check - then Google decided they didn't want direct user input any more after a few cases of map vandalism.  There is a way to submit limited changes directly from the Google Maps interface but it has a low chance of being acted upon -- right click on the map where the problem is and select "Report a data problem".

map vandalism? what exactly do you mean?

[cjw2001]

It looks like someone at Google Maps jumped the gun and labeled SR-37 all the way to I-465 as I-69. I know a long time ago we used to be able to submit corrections but I don't think they've had that option recently.

In the old times Google Mapmaker existed to allow user input and there were Google Maps Regional Leads (like myself) that kept the map data in check - then Google decided they didn't want direct user input any more after a few cases of map vandalism.  There is a way to submit limited changes directly from the Google Maps interface but it has a low chance of being acted upon -- right click on the map where the problem is and select "Report a data problem".

map vandalism? what exactly do you mean?

It was a long time ago but I believe someone drew some obscene images using road segments in a remote location.  After that happened a few times Google shut mapmaker down.   This is why we can't have nice things.

[cjw2001]

It looks like someone at Google Maps jumped the gun and labeled SR-37 all the way to I-465 as I-69. I know a long time ago we used to be able to submit corrections but I don't think they've had that option recently.

In the old times Google Mapmaker existed to allow user input and there were Google Maps Regional Leads (like myself) that kept the map data in check - then Google decided they didn't want direct user input any more after a few cases of map vandalism.  There is a way to submit limited changes directly from the Google Maps interface but it has a low chance of being acted upon -- right click on the map where the problem is and select "Report a data problem".

map vandalism? what exactly do you mean?

It was a long time ago but I believe someone drew some obscene images using road segments in a remote location.  After that happened a few times Google shut mapmaker down.   This is why we can't have nice things.

This was the tipping point that shut it all down:  https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/google-temporarily-shuts-down-map-maker-due-to-vandalism/

It's a shame it came to that as Google Mapmaker allowed us to keep the map current and accurate.  I personally mapped all the interchanges on the new US 31 Freeway in Hamilton county as they happened, keeping the map updated almost real time.   That's no longer possible.  All I can do now is get frustrated at how inaccurate the map is and submit the occasional edit in the maps interface that usually gets ignored.

[mvak36]

It looks like someone at Google Maps jumped the gun and labeled SR-37 all the way to I-465 as I-69. I know a long time ago we used to be able to submit corrections but I don't think they've had that option recently.

In the old times Google Mapmaker existed to allow user input and there were Google Maps Regional Leads (like myself) that kept the map data in check - then Google decided they didn't want direct user input any more after a few cases of map vandalism.  There is a way to submit limited changes directly from the Google Maps interface but it has a low chance of being acted upon -- right click on the map where the problem is and select "Report a data problem".

map vandalism? what exactly do you mean?

It was a long time ago but I believe someone drew some obscene images using road segments in a remote location.  After that happened a few times Google shut mapmaker down.   This is why we can't have nice things.

This was the tipping point that shut it all down:  https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/google-temporarily-shuts-down-map-maker-due-to-vandalism/

It's a shame it came to that as Google Mapmaker allowed us to keep the map current and accurate.  I personally mapped all the interchanges on the new US 31 Freeway in Hamilton county as they happened, keeping the map updated almost real time.   That's no longer possible.  All I can do now is get frustrated at how inaccurate the map is and submit the occasional edit in the maps interface that usually gets ignored.

I remember that one lol. Got a good laugh out of it back then.

I'm not bothering to submit a correction because they'll probably just ignore me anyways.