More US 31 upgrades between Indy and South Bend

[ysuindy]

Here's the newspaper article I referenced in the previous post with the link (as I see this post starts a new page)

https://www.heraldbulletin.com/indiana/opinion/joe-mcguinness-smarter-and-safer-us/article_a038f42c-0079-5294-a511-0c1f9c3e5419.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postfity&utm_content=postfityaa6c4

[Life in Paradise]

After reading the news article and the link to the US31 project, I believe that we have the answer to the I-67 question.  INDOT is pushing for free flow, but not interstate freeway stating that the cost and delays would not be worth any additional benefit.  Perhaps the state legislature could review the speed limits on different types of state roadways.

[Buck87]

Came across this page today in a link from a newspaper article

https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Includes a map with scheduled dates for each improvement

Nice map.

Looks like there's one mistake on there. It shows 276th Street getting an interchange, which would be 5 interchanges, while the wording in the text portion of that page lists 4 interchanges and does not include 276th Street. So one of those is wrong, and I'd guess it's the map, and that 276th is either supposed to be listed as an intersection redesign or overpass.

[ysuindy]

Came across this page today in a link from a newspaper article

https://www.in.gov/indot/3973.htm

Includes a map with scheduled dates for each improvement

Nice map.

Looks like there's one mistake on there. It shows 276th Street getting an interchange, which would be 5 interchanges, while the wording in the text portion of that page lists 4 interchanges and does not include 276th Street. So one of those is wrong, and I'd guess it's the map, and that 276th is either supposed to be listed as an intersection redesign or overpass.

276th Street is where Reynolds Farm Equipment is and is the road to Beck's Hybrids.  I'm not sure how much traffic Beck's generates, but given the amount of farm equipment that would be delivered to Reynolds, I'm going to guess there is going to be some level of access to 31 there - interchange or intersection redesign.  The Reynolds are a long time Hamilton County family and business - if anyone with a business along that stretch of 31 has the clout to get access, I would imagine they are at or near the top of that list.

[silverback1065]

There is FOR SURE an interchange going at 276th and 31.  It is the next major corridor for Ham Co.

[tdindy88]

Speaking of the upcoming upgrades to US 31, I did a fun little experiment using INDOT's district maps, which show the mile markers for every state highway. I've complied a list of what could be the exit numbers for all the proposed interchanges along US 31 from Indy to South Bend. Not sure if anyone is really interested in this but it was fun to think about.

Exit 138 - 236th Street
Exit 142 - 276th Street
Exit 150 - Division Road
Exit 170 - SR 18
Exit 180 - Business US 31
Exit 183 - US 24 (existing)
Exit 203 - SR 25 (existing)
Exit 217 - SR 10

And, just out of curiosity, I considered what exit numbers would be like on the segment of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway around South Bend using the US 31 mile markers, starting with the current Exit 246 that is currently at the interchange with US 20. Right now INDOT uses the US 20 mile markers for the US 31 concurrency of the bypass. The numbers probably aren't precise but they should be close. 

Exit 248 - SR 25
Exit 249 - Mayflower Road
Exit 251 - SR 2
Exit 253 - US 20
Exit 255 - Nimitz Pkwy/Toll Road
Exit 256 - Cleveland Road

Personally, if we were to number the exits around South Bend, I think US 31's numbers should trump US 20's on the western part of the bypass. US 20 mile markers should be used for the exits to the east of US 31. US 31's exit would be US 20 Exit 79 and the eastern end of the freeway, County Road 17 would be Exit 95.

[sprjus4]

After reading the news article and the link to the US31 project, I believe that we have the answer to the I-67 question.  INDOT is pushing for free flow, but not interstate freeway stating that the cost and delays would not be worth any additional benefit.  Perhaps the state legislature could review the speed limits on different types of state roadways.

Since law permits 65 mph along non-interstate freeway segments, they should evaluate allowing this along non-freeway highway segments as well, at least on corridors like US-31, along with others in the state such as US-231 north of Owensboro, KY. This would make the speed same as a freeway upgrade as well. I imagine most people already drive 65 - 70 mph today, an increase would bring the speed limit closely to reality.

[Buck87]

Noticed another inconsistency between the wording on that page and the map. It states...

In 2019, an additional $75 million in state funding was earmarked to construct two additional interchanges on U.S. 31 — at Division Road in Tipton County, and at S.R. 218 North Junction in Miami County — and to construct a railroad overpass over U.S. 31, north of Argos in Marshall County.

...but the map shows "new bridge separation (remove signal)" for Division Rd and "intersection reconstruction (remove signal)" for 218 north junction

[Revive 755]

Since law permits 65 mph along non-interstate freeway segments, they should evaluate allowing this along non-freeway highway segments as well, at least on corridors like US-31, along with others in the state such as US-231 north of Owensboro, KY. This would make the speed same as a freeway upgrade as well. I imagine most people already drive 65 - 70 mph today, an increase would bring the speed limit closely to reality.

I second this - US 41 has many spots where 60 mph is nonsensical and widely disobeyed.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Since law permits 65 mph along non-interstate freeway segments, they should evaluate allowing this along non-freeway highway segments as well, at least on corridors like US-31, along with others in the state such as US-231 north of Owensboro, KY. This would make the speed same as a freeway upgrade as well. I imagine most people already drive 65 - 70 mph today, an increase would bring the speed limit closely to reality.

I second this - US 41 has many spots where 60 mph is nonsensical and widely disobeyed.

Could US 24 and SR 25 also get a speed limit increase as well? That road looks like a freeway to me as well.

[Life in Paradise]

Since law permits 65 mph along non-interstate freeway segments, they should evaluate allowing this along non-freeway highway segments as well, at least on corridors like US-31, along with others in the state such as US-231 north of Owensboro, KY. This would make the speed same as a freeway upgrade as well. I imagine most people already drive 65 - 70 mph today, an increase would bring the speed limit closely to reality.

I second this - US 41 has many spots where 60 mph is nonsensical and widely disobeyed.

Agreed.  There are stretches I drive both south and north of Vincennes where traffic lights are over 10 miles apart (north of V-city its actually about 30 miles) and the road is straight with sweeping curves.  Would be easy to drive 65 (and they did back in the early 70s).

[I-39]

After reading the news article and the link to the US31 project, I believe that we have the answer to the I-67 question.  INDOT is pushing for free flow, but not interstate freeway stating that the cost and delays would not be worth any additional benefit.  Perhaps the state legislature could review the speed limits on different types of state roadways.

I'm not sure about that. I think for the foreseeable future they are pushing for free flow, but I still think the super long range plan is to make the US 31 corridor a full freeway. I have a feeling once free flow is achieved, communities along the corridor will push for an Interstate designation which will require INDOT to make whatever remains of the expressway after this project fully access controlled.

It won't happen in the next decade, but I think this is simply the next step towards an eventual Interstate. But I agree there are bigger priorities that INDOT needs to work on first.

[ibthebigd]

I feel like the interstate designation will depend on if Michigan wants to build one all the way to Grand Rapids

SM-G950U

[sprjus4]

I feel like the interstate designation will depend on if Michigan wants to build one all the way to Grand Rapids

With the exception of a 3 mile gap that needs to be filled between the US-31 freeway and I-196, the route already exists as a complete freeway.

[sparker]

I feel like the interstate designation will depend on if Michigan wants to build one all the way to Grand Rapids

With the exception of a 3 mile gap that needs to be filled between the US-31 freeway and I-196, the route already exists as a complete freeway.

Which won't directly segue from US 31 to I-196 but instead curve over to I-94 one interchange west of the 196 split to avoid an environmentally sensitive watershed.  SB, continuity on US 31 will require using a loop from WB 94 to the US 31 extension.  While not unprecedented (hello, I-80 in IL et. al.), such an arrangement isn't looked on favorably by AASHTO these days;  even with all freeway-to-freeway nonstop connections, getting a I-67 designated over the full corridor wouldn't be a certainty no matter what IN did with their segment. 

[monty]

US 31 Coalition https://wsbt.com/news/local/plan-for-improvements-on-us-31-getting-pushback-for-not-moving-fast-enough

[Great Lakes Roads]

US 31 Coalition https://wsbt.com/news/local/plan-for-improvements-on-us-31-getting-pushback-for-not-moving-fast-enough

INDOT does not need to spend >$1 billion on upgrading US 31 into a freeway if it only saves ~9 minutes over the current system, and I don't think that it needs a freeway or interstate. Hey Indiana, look at Wisconsin or Ohio for examples (interchanges at major cities and junctions, speed limit 65-70, no traffic lights, etc.)!

[monty]

Five J turns planned for Miami County on US 31: https://www.kokomotribune.com/news/local_news/indot-installing-j-turns-on-u-s-in-miami-co/article_885776b0-51ca-11ea-a0f5-23847354222e.html

Excerpts below. Worth reading it all. Quite controversial.
INDOT confirmed last week it will install the intersections, which the state now calls median U-turns, at the intersections of 850 South, Ind. 218 South junction that goes into Bunker, Ind. 218 North junction that runs by Grissom Air Reserve Base, 100 North and Ind. 16.

INDOT is installing two new full-on interchanges in Miami County at Ind. 18 and Business 31. Those projects are projected to be finished by 2023.

[Finrod]

"It's just a cheap way of getting out of building interchanges." (regarding J-turns)

Can't say I disagree with that sentiment.

[silverback1065]

"It's just a cheap way of getting out of building interchanges." (regarding J-turns)

Can't say I disagree with that sentiment.

I think indot will eventually replace these with interchanges eventually. They probably consider this a 1st step towards that. But they also shafted Evansville on the Lloyd, instead of new interchanges there they're doing "displaced left turns"

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
After reading the full article, it seems that INDOT is a bit "tone-deaf" regarding pushback against J-turns -- particularly if they're confined to one particular county.  It's a virtual certainty that Miami County, feeling shortchanged by INDOT -- specifically since their spokespersons have all but admitted that it's being done as a cost-saving device -- will complain to their representatives, who in turn (unless completely in thrall to state agencies) will put pressure for an expedited schedule to replace these J-turns with interchanges -- or perhaps forestall the installation of the turns; retaining signalized intersections until funding for interchanges can be identified and sequestered.  INDOT has seemingly painted itself into a corner by proclaiming several years ago that its goal was to upgrade US 31 into an Interstate-grade freeway from I-465 to the MI state line -- and now that it's backtracking on that with partial/interim solutions (quite obviously due to various funding shortfalls), a significant level of controversy and opposition can be expected.   IMO, a more leisurely rate of full upgrades to a limited-access facility is vastly preferable to installing stopgap measures and attempting to mollify the local drivers who must traverse those invariably slow-speed J-turn configurations.  Achieving a "signal-less" lengthy facility can be done safely and correctly or "on the cheap";  it seems pointless to spend the funds to install suboptimal measures when such will be obviated in relatively short order by political pressure translated into agency expedition -- just to proclaim that one has a "free-flowing" highway.   

[monty]

Very well stated Sparker.  This is a political hot potato.

An opinion of mine about the safety of such J turns applied to this corridor: Consider that U turns are illegal on fully limited access freeways / interstate highways for safety purposes. Now we are taking a highway corridor that has stretches of interstate quality roadway and forcing semi trucks to make U turns on them. The first fatality on the new Kokomo US 31 segment involved a small truck making an illegal U turn on it.  I am not an engineer. I respect their work. But regardless of engineered intent, drivers on particular roadways will exhibit behaviors that are beyond engineering. Each of the remaining stoplights on this corridor become more dangerous as they diminish in number. Drivers don't expect to stop. Same goes for U turning in a median. Drivers are not expecting them to happen. I think this mitigates the proclaimed engineering safety factors applied.  This is not just a local highway. It has interstate traffic and is being driven as such by those who are not familiar with the little details.

[I-39]

Adding to what has been said above, I'll ask this question.

Why must US 31 be an outlier?

With the construction of I-69, every other corner of Indiana is being connected with an Interstate. Why must the US 31 corridor between South Bend and Indianapolis be different? Surely, it generates more traffic than most of the new I-69 corridor? Even if it doesn't happen in the near term, the long term goal should still be Interstate-grade freeway between South Bend and Indianapolis.

[sprjus4]

Adding to what has been said above, I'll ask this question.

Why must US 31 be an outlier?

With the construction of I-69, every other corner of Indiana is being connected with an Interstate. Why must the US 31 corridor between South Bend and Indianapolis be different? Surely, it generates more traffic than most of the new I-69 corridor? Even if it doesn't happen in the near term, the long term goal should still be Interstate-grade freeway between South Bend and Indianapolis.

I agree, especially when billions of dollars are currently being invested to upgrade SR-37 to interstate standards when there was already a 4-lane divided highway similar to the state of US-31 there. I'm not saying I'm against the upgrade projects, both are certainly needed, but the same efforts should be put onto the US-31 corridor in the near future.

I would understand it more if they were a state that took a more conservative approach to large-scale corridor upgrades, but if I-69 is any indication, they're not.

[sparker]

Adding to what has been said above, I'll ask this question.

Why must US 31 be an outlier?

With the construction of I-69, every other corner of Indiana is being connected with an Interstate. Why must the US 31 corridor between South Bend and Indianapolis be different? Surely, it generates more traffic than most of the new I-69 corridor? Even if it doesn't happen in the near term, the long term goal should still be Interstate-grade freeway between South Bend and Indianapolis.

I agree, especially when billions of dollars are currently being invested to upgrade SR-37 to interstate standards when there was already a 4-lane divided highway similar to the state of US-31 there. I'm not saying I'm against the upgrade projects, both are certainly needed, but the same efforts should be put onto the US-31 corridor in the near future.

I would understand it more if they were a state that took a more conservative approach to large-scale corridor upgrades, but if I-69 is any indication, they're not.

It's highly likely that the interim measures planned to be applied to the US 31 corridor are simply INDOT performing "thumb twiddling" until the fiscal impact of the I-69 corridor -- including their share of the Ohio River bridge -- have been internalized (other statewide project funding, such as the Heartland corridor, probably figures into all this as well).  Once those expenses are in the rear-view mirror -- and if "spot" expenses elsewhere can be kept to a reasonable level -- then funding to bring the US 31 corridor out to what has been long promised might shake free.   What needs to be avoided is a sense of agency complacency if the interim measures such as currently proposed come to fruition.  But somehow I think the driving public arrayed along US 31 might have something to say about that!