Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana

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

Previous topic - Next topic

NE2

Using the construction/proposed routing mapped in OSM, I get 183.3 miles from the south end of I-164 to the south end of I-69. I agree that 200 is bogus.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".


mukade

And the distance from where I-69 will head south from the current I-164 to the Ohio is slightly more than the distance west to US 41. That would make it around 184.

NE2

Anyone want to contact INDOT and get some bureaucrat a reprimand for thinking?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

ClarkE

I drove past the future US 231/I-69 interchange a few weeks ago, and they were placing the concrete beams for the overpass above 231 then.

mukade

Quote from: NE2 on July 14, 2012, 06:20:29 PM
Anyone want to contact INDOT and get some bureaucrat a reprimand for thinking?

INDOT is fairly decent about responding to questions. Sometimes even their resident highway historian will answer (like when I asked if US 641 ever entered Indiana as shown on some maps). Anyway, the 184 mile distance has been published by INDOT for quite a while so I will assume it is correct.

tidecat

I suspect that the addition of 200 to the existing exit numbers is being done to make things easier on motorists and businesses-it's easier on people when something is off exit 154/354 than exit 154/338.  The 16 mile "gap" will likely be hidden within I-465 and I-74's exit numbering.
Clinched: I-264 (KY), I-265 (KY), I-359 (AL), I-459 (AL), I-865 (IN)

vdeane

Getting a rough measurement on Google Maps from the IN 37 interchange, the difference in mileage between going on the east side of the beltway versus the west side is around 12 miles.  The actual difference is likely closer to 13 or 14 and I'm not sure where the I-69 interchange will be.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mukade

The plans I saw showed I-69 coming in about a mile west of SR 37/Harding St. Originally, that interchange was supposed to be built as part of Major Moves.

PurdueBill

Quote from: tidecat on July 14, 2012, 07:08:53 PM
I suspect that the addition of 200 to the existing exit numbers is being done to make things easier on motorists and businesses-it's easier on people when something is off exit 154/354 than exit 154/338.  The 16 mile "gap" will likely be hidden within I-465 and I-74's exit numbering.

That is much easier indeed--I hope that the Feds don't cause trouble with it somehow.  If INDOT wanted to, they could probably even officially route 69 the other way around 465 (around the northeast corner) while signing it the way it is supposed to go (around the southeast corner) which would be about 11 miles longer, giving 195 or 196 instead of 184 miles added, much closer to the 200.

They couldn't get away with it easily if 69 had its own exit numbers, but since the 465 numbers will dominate, it seems like a natural way to ease the trouble of the exit number changes.

NE2

Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2012, 04:15:05 PM
That is much easier indeed--I hope that the Feds don't cause trouble with it somehow.
MUTCD says nothing about starting at zero, but I think it frowns upon deliberate milepost equations.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

PurdueBill

Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2012, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2012, 04:15:05 PM
That is much easier indeed--I hope that the Feds don't cause trouble with it somehow.
MUTCD says nothing about starting at zero, but I think it frowns upon deliberate milepost equations.

It does seem that adding a nice round number like 200 that is close to the offset would make it a lot easier for not only those living and working nearby and those who would have to have promotional/advertising materials redone to reflect new exit numbers in directions, but easier for everyone using the road who might have an old map.  Adding 200 to the old number is something that can be done instantly and would ease driver confusion, while adding 184 is less easy while trying to drive and navigate.  It seems justifiable in the name of making things easier for the motorists to handle the change.  (And for those who estimate distances by difference in exit number, they will estimate 16 miles too long the first time they do it, but the terrible traffic on 465 at many times of day will eat up any of the theoretical savings in distance anyway, so it will all wash out.  :D  )

tdindy88

Until I hear about the meetings taking place in Fishers and Fort Wayne and what INDOT's plans on the renumbering are, I'm not going to take the 200 thing too seriously. In any case, I don't really see the point of making it easier while sacrificing logic and pretending that 16 miles of highway exists when it doesn't, but that's just me. In any case, there will be an old number and a new number, and whether or not you have to subtract 184 or 200 makes little difference as far as I'm personally concerned. As long as I know what the new number is I am alright. People aren't going to be interested in what kind of math you have to do to get to the number, they are just going to want the number itself.

Alps

Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2012, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2012, 04:15:05 PM
That is much easier indeed--I hope that the Feds don't cause trouble with it somehow.
MUTCD says nothing about starting at zero, but I think it frowns upon deliberate milepost equations.
Numbering is to be done based on mileage. There's nothing in there saying that equations are prohibited - otherwise you'd have a hell of a time renumbering every time a bypass is built or a kink straightened when a road is slowly upgraded to freeway.

NE2

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2012, 07:44:19 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2012, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2012, 04:15:05 PM
That is much easier indeed--I hope that the Feds don't cause trouble with it somehow.
MUTCD says nothing about starting at zero, but I think it frowns upon deliberate milepost equations.
Numbering is to be done based on mileage. There's nothing in there saying that equations are prohibited - otherwise you'd have a hell of a time renumbering every time a bypass is built or a kink straightened when a road is slowly upgraded to freeway.
Sure. But deliberate equations not caused by realignments? If INDOT is allowed to add 16 miles in the middle of I-69, why can't a state define appropriate equations to keep sequential numbers? :)
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

ljwestmcsd

The mileage on I-64 east of Lexington, KY is off slightly from that west of Lexington, but it's hidden by I-75, so there's precedence for this.

Alps

Quote from: NE2 on July 16, 2012, 08:03:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2012, 07:44:19 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2012, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2012, 04:15:05 PM
That is much easier indeed--I hope that the Feds don't cause trouble with it somehow.
MUTCD says nothing about starting at zero, but I think it frowns upon deliberate milepost equations.
Numbering is to be done based on mileage. There's nothing in there saying that equations are prohibited - otherwise you'd have a hell of a time renumbering every time a bypass is built or a kink straightened when a road is slowly upgraded to freeway.
Sure. But deliberate equations not caused by realignments? If INDOT is allowed to add 16 miles in the middle of I-69, why can't a state define appropriate equations to keep sequential numbers? :)
So the distance between Exit 2 and 3 on MA I-90 would be one mile by signage, because each tenth-mile sign is 3 miles apart?

Alex

When Interstate 85 was realigned around Greensboro, NC, it increased the mileage of I-85 by three, but the exit numbers beyond the new alignment were left unchanged. So the I-69 200 mile addition would not be the first time exit numbers were fudged on the system.

tdindy88


hbelkins

Quote from: ljwestmcsd on July 16, 2012, 08:45:17 PM
The mileage on I-64 east of Lexington, KY is off slightly from that west of Lexington, but it's hidden by I-75, so there's precedence for this.

Not really. There is an approximate eight-mile overlap. I-64's exits for I-75 are 75 (northern split) and 83 (southern split). I-75's exits for I-64 are 111 (southern split) and 118 (northern split). There's a one-mile difference, but milepoint placement on I-75 in relation to the exits is probably the reason for that.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

ShawnP


RoadWarrior56

Speaking of the I-69 Extension, I noticed this morning that Google Earth has updated its photography to show the I-69 construction north to Petersburg.

mobilene

Here's the thing I don't get. In Indiana, we tend to call an exit by the road it exits onto.  "Take the 96th St. exit" or "Take the SR 37 exit" or whatever.  When Indiana went from sequential to mile-based exit numbers a bunch of years ago, it was met with a collective ho-hum statewide.  So in a big way, imho, the average Indiana traveler couldn't care less about exit numbers. -Jim
jim grey | Indianapolis, Indiana

mukade

I thought when Indiana added exit numbers in the late 1970s or early 1980s, they were mileage-based. I don't remember them being sequential except on the Toll Road.

Either way, mileage-based means just that. If I am 184 miles away from the Ohio River, I would prefer to know that. Once you change it to a "close enough for Government work" based system you lose that little convenience. I assume the mile markers will also match the exit numbers, right? What a mess that would be if they were different. I guess the fact they would be doing it north of Indy and not down south is better than starting that creative little system further south, but I still don't like the idea.

mobilene

Maybe you're right about that ... I grew up along the Toll Road, and when it changed to mileage-based exit numbers, I must have assumed the whole state's Interstate system went along at the same time.

I guess I also assume that people notice mile markers and can interpret them.
jim grey | Indianapolis, Indiana

mukade

I agree, they can interpret them - until they are no longer accurate on I-69. Then none of us will be able to unless we remember to subtract 16.

As for the Toll Road, I think that renumbereing happened a few years after the rest of the freeway exits were numbered.

Speaking of mileage-based exit numbers, who remembers these?



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.